cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/25042034
This post is “FYI only” for blahaj lemmy members. It is not a debate, and is not intended for non blahaj lemmy users to weigh in and offer opinions.
I recently received reports of a feddit.uk user espousing transphobia. Specifically, this was a feddit.uk user refusing to use the word cis, repeating the “adult human female” dog whistle, and claiming that trans women are not women. I approached a member of the feddit.uk admin team and raised my concerns and sought clarification of their stance on posts like this, where the transphobia is mostly dogwhistles, and “civil disagreement” on the validity of trans folk.
I was told by the feddit.uk admin that their preferred response is this kind of transphobia is to “sort it out through discussion and voting”. However, the comments in question are currently more upvoted than downvoted, and little “sorting out” has occurred. The posts remain in place.
At this point, the admin stopped responding to my messages despite being active elsewhere on lemmy. When it became clear they were ignoring my messages and had no intention of removing the posts in question, I made the decision to defederate the instance.
I know some folk agree with the feddit.uk admins approach of pushback through discussion and voting, but this instance is not designed to be that kind of space. Blahaj lemmy is meant to be a place where we can avoid the rampant transphobia universally visible on nearly every other social media platform, and where we can exist without needing to debate our right to do so.
For anyone who’s curious about the actual messages, I think these are them:
Well, they’re right that it is pretty simple. Here’s a fun experiment for anyone who thinks this isn’t transphobic: try reading it again, but substitute black for trans. Totally reasonable they should have to use another bathroom, right?
Did you even read the text?
Did you? They spent the whole post arguing that a trans woman is not a woman. To clarify, a cis woman and a trans woman are different things. Both of these things are women. Cis and trans describe the women.
Some trans women may identify with having once been a man, but it’s hardly the case for all of them, especially the ones who recognized their mistaken assignment early. She was always herself. She was never a man unless she herself identified as one.
The wording “used to be a man” and “used to have a penis” makes me wonder if this person is using genital surgery as a determining factor. It’s thankfully becoming very acceptable these days to be a girl with a penis or boy with a vagina, so that such surgeries are more of a personal decision rather than a means of legitimizing oneself to society.
You’re “experiment” does not make sense.
From another one of my posts referring to your “experiment”:
I disagree with this, and I’d downvote it, but it sounds like they’re just repeating what the supreme court said. I don’t think it deserves a ban.
Completely defederating with us over this is insane
That’s actually not nearly as extreme as I was expecting
It’s worse imo, because it’s the sneaky “reasonable” tactic that tries to pretend disconnection from its agenda. It’s a filthy lying hat full of shit that doesn’t even have the balls to present itself in truth.
And it works, because when people see straight through it and call it out for what it is, we end up with “concerned” and well meaning groups gathering themselves together discussing in depth whether or not it was reallly that bad and the overton window shifts further rightward.
Just because it’s have a cordial tone, but it’s pretty tranphobic all around the place. Master class on sealioning.
I mean the basic argument, that trans identifying peoples are in their own distinct categories outside of the typical gender binary, actually has some interesting meat to it.
Trans men and women do have different experiences from their cisgender counterparts, different medical needs, different journeys. None of which I am experienced enough in the subject to speak to.
Kinda loses me on their “I don’t use the word cis” part though
Op argument is that they are Real Women and then then Women Who Used To Have Penis, reducing the trans experience and identify to the sex they were born into. The part of not using the word cis is not even the worst, imo, like using the word “thing” to talk about people is pretty disgusting, or comparing “blonde women” with “trans women” like if gender identity was just a superficial aspect of a person instead of the fundamental one it is.
See, I just don’t think what you’ve deduced the argument to was what was actually said.
Think of it from a math perspective. The non-transphobic stance would be that woman is the superset which contains subsets of trans, cis, and others. The comment says they’re two separate sets, woman and transwoman. This is why cis doesn’t have to be used, because woman is sufficient to describe the set, because trans women aren’t part of it.
This fucking website, “Let me just simplify that to the idea of math supersets for you”…and it works
That was very helpful way of reframing the discussion. Thank you.
Idk just saying that transwomen and cis women are different doesn’t seem transphobic in and of itself, especially since the person seems to be saying that they should have the same rights now
Right, I agree, but that’s not what they’re saying. They’re saying women and transwomen aren’t the same.
As in, a rephrase of “transwomen aren’t women”.
Agreed - but the crucial point here is that the comment says that trans women are not women, which is a stance many would consider to be transphobia. I think the proper way to say it is that trans women and cis women are obviously not the same thing, but both are women.
This is the exact semantic they are talking about in the post. You just have different semantic parent objects. You want trans/cis with parent of woman, they used Transwoman/woman with parent as person. They are semantically equivalent.
They are not equivalent - one semantic assigns trans women under the category of women (not transphobic) while the other semantic assigns trans women as separate from the category of women (which many would say is transphobic).
Question ya wanna ask yourself is “WHY do they wanna differentiate between the two?”
What is the purpose of that distinction?
Is it medical care? 'Cos specific considerations are the only nice reason i can think of why you’d need to do that. Can think of a lot of nasty reasons why though.
The whole “I’m not saying ‘cis’” is the biggest red flag. Typically in their mind it’s because cis means “normal” instead of just being an adjective. It’s like the people that say they have nothing against the gays ™ but they don’t like it shoved in their faces. Nothing against them but don’t exist near me energy.
It’s a very polite post on the surface, but do note that they refer to trans women as “it”. I think they’re being very polite because they know that saying “I think trans women are just deluded men and I don’t want to respect those things” doesn’t go as well.
They don’t. Read the text carefully. The use of “it” doesn’t seem to be in relation to trans women.
I agree it confusing, but the use of it seems to be more general. Note how the rest of the text doesn’t use such a construction.
The UK is known for polite transphobia.
Isn’t that pretty much just JK Rowling? Iirc, the govt and BBC are pretty good about it
Considering recent events, I’d disagree with the idea the government is good about it.
Blahaj admins trumping up something minor into a crisis so they can claim they’re being discriminated against and enact a wild overreactive response?
I’m shocked. Shocked, I say. Well… not that shocked.
I mean in fairness, the original messages are a little bit ignorant yes. Mostly I was just trying to quote the accurate background material so people could see the primary source information.
Wow, de-federation (and trying to imply feddit.uk is transphobic) over this?
This is definitely acting in bad faith.
I’m so annoyed by these pseudointellectuals who can’t seem to grasp the relatively simple difference between “sex” and “gender”.
I don’t understand what this has to do with the difference between sex and gender. Is “woman” a sex or a gender?
It can vary on the context, but “female” and “male” are “supposed” to refer to biological sex alone.
That’s why it can be offensive when men talk about women as “females”, and why it also would sound slightly silly to talk about — for instance — women penguins. “Female penguins” sounds much more correct, doesn’t it?
So the problem is the word “female”, not the word “woman”, am I understand this correctly? If I am, then what should the correct sentence/statement be? “A woman is an adult …”
I’m not trolling, I’m genuinely confused because I thought XX -> female, XY -> male, but there are a bunch of combinations that present themselves / have a male or female phenotype. Is woman supposed to be the gender and female the sex?
Yes.
But like I’ve said, the issue is that most people don’t know their difference between “gender” and “sex”. Hell, my native language doesn’t even have two distinct words, which is a huge negative when trying to educate them on the subject.
And because they don’t understand the difference, they sometimes, or all the time, think “woman” refers to the biological sex, and thus they insist “men can’t become women”, because biologically you don’t change from male to female, and that is true. But your gender does change from masculine to feminine, so it is not wrong to say that men can become women.
It’s honestly just a lack understanding. And that lack of understanding stems from fear of seeming stupid, so they fear talking about it and interacting with the subject. Which is why it’s called transphobia, despite those people not necessarily being directly afraid of trans people.
Languages, or gender identities, are never quite as straight forward as we’d like them to be.
OK. That makes sense. But why is it offensive to refer to certain women as females and certain men as males?
It seems to be the correct terminology to be more specific e.g “she’s a male woman” makes more sense to me than transwoman because I never know which “direction” it is (transitioned to woman or transitioned from woman). And if would also be clearer to say that somebody is male/female for those that don’t want a question to “linger” whether it’s what they identify as or whether they were born that way.
It seems like only romance languages do, because they have “gendre”. I do wonder which other languages do.
Other languages have gender as well. And we have a word for gender. It’s just the same word as for “sex”, but we do have words for “woman”, “man”, “male” and “female”, so you might ask “kumpi sukupuoli” (which sex/gender) and depending on context, you’d reply either “man/woman” or “male/female” as in “mies/nainen” for man/woman and “uros/naaras” for a biological sex, however those terms are even more clearly not for humans than in English. As in English, a cop might reasonably say “suspect is a white male, six foot”, etc, but no Finnish cops would ever use “uros”. You could in very specific contexts perhaps sometimes use those for people, if you’re like trying to invoke animal imagery for very masculine males or something, but it’d be closer to “bitch” almost than “female” to call a woman “naaras” in Finnish. Not really, but it wouldn’t be far off. It’s like almost halfway between those, I’d say.
Well if there’s “trans” in front of the “man” or “woman” that’s like having - in front of a number. Like 7 isn’t the same as -7 you know? They look similar, but it’s not hard to learn. That being said, I do actually agree with you that that would be the correct terminology, however we can’t really ascribe rules to language and I can see reminding people that they’re not “true” women, but “male” women would be like deadnaming. There’s just no need to specify. A woman is a woman. A woman is a gender, or should be, and that’s the direction we’re taking the language in. (And by “us” I mean “the woke people” as opposed to the transphobes and conservative fucknuts) Be you short, tall, black, trans or even ginger, you’re still a woman, they’re all just adjectives. Unless there’s honestly a genuine need to specify, then what’s the point of having that adjective there?
Trans women are women, quite simply.
You misunderstood me. I’m talking about languages that do have different words for gender and sex. Romance languages do, but I wonder which other languages do as well. If you look at the wiktionary, languages that do have their own different words for it are in the minority. Most seem to borrow it from English.
Anyway, it seems like gender studies have a lot of work to do bringing their point across. It doesn’t look like they’re doing a good job, because it seems to be in a state of flux and the chosen terminology is extremely confusing as it overloads or seeks to replace an existing term with a new definition. And when someone doesn’t understand, often they are written off as a transphobe (luckily not in our discussion) and called out instead of called in.
The wikipedia article on the word “woman” starting off with “A woman is an adult female human” parses terribly. A ‘gender’ is an adult ‘sex’ human. Wat?
Had it been “A ‘new term’ is an adult human presenting as a woman”, it would’ve been waaaay easier to point someone to it and say “see, this is what I mean when I use ‘new term’”. Instead we ge discussions like these where someone has to explain “Look, the definition says this, but the ‘old term’ doesn’t refer to the old concept, but to the new concept. I know it doesn’t mention the new concept, but if you read the whole thing, you’ll see that it’s complicated, but can be broken down to ‘new term’ are ‘old term’” and by then you’ve lost a bunch of people who just aren’t interested and would rather talk about politics or the weather.
But thanks for being more illuminating than the wikipedia article. What a terrible article.
Thank you for posting it. Good to know that Blahaj made the right choice for its users, which really wasn’t obvious otherwise.