[Vicky.]

I genuinely do not think that acknowledging that a male person is male is transphobic. Lauren acknowledges her sex. She had operations to ease the dysphoria, but an actual sex change is not possible, and everyone knows this.

I don't 'see her' as a man. But I do acknowledge she is male.

I cannot think of a racist analogy here, but saying, a black person is black, is not racist. Saying a gay person is gay is not homophobic.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I genuinely do not think that acknowledging that a male person is male is transphobic. .

What sort of comments do you think people were thinking about when they mentioned yours (and other peoples) transphobia.

Its stuff like that above "acknowledging a male person is a male". Clearly she is not a male, does not want to be seen as one, and does not want to live as one. Calling her one is transphobic. Its refusing to accept her as a her, and it is ignorant.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Withano

What sort of comments do you think people were thinking about when they mentioned yours (and other peoples) transphobia.

Its stuff like that above "acknowledging a male person is a male". Clearly she is not a male, does not want to be seen as one, and does not want to live as one. Calling her one is transphobic. Its refusing to accept her as a her, and it is ignorant.

She is male. Male is her sex.

I use 'her' and 'she' for lauren. But I do not see her as a woman. I see her as a transwoman. As thats what she is.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

She is male. Male is her sex.

I use 'her' and 'she' for lauren. But I do not see her as a woman. I see her as a transwoman. As thats what she is.

Her birth sex was male. And then she had a sex change. Her sex is now, and her gender always was female. Unless your specifically discussing her birthsex, which would be evident under the term 'transowman' alone, theres no reason to call her a male or a man, unless youre being transphobic.

Perhaps its just a bad habit as yours, but many see this as transphobia, and for the sake of consistency in the rules, and avoiding more of those angry threads from yesterday, i think you should be more tactful tbh.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Withano

Her birth sex was male. And then she had a sex change. Her sex is now, and her gender always was female. Unless your specifically discussing her birthsex, which would be evident under the term 'transowman' alone, theres no reason to call her a male or a man, unless youre being transphobic.

Perhaps its just a bad habit as yours, but many see this as transphobia, and for the sake of consistency in the rules, and avoiding more of those angry threads from yesterday, i think you should be more tactful tbh.

Why the need to control so much how others writes and speak? It's their words, in their personal manner of speech. Anyone can speak however they'd like... if you mean, that that people should shift their words away from what may cause offense. Well, that's pretty much how life works isn't it... we live and breath and sometimes that may cause offense to others. We have to all make compromises with each other on a daily basis to coexist. This is how we get on in a multicultural society...

I think, tolerance is a two way street. Vicky's been giving folk her time and ample respect to answer these questions, some of them quite personal and offensive at various points, and to continue to have patient dialogue... that's quite a bit of patience if I may say... I think the best way to encourage non-superficial tolerance actually is to show it back when it is given to you.

Forcing people to agree with us or speak the way we'd like is not a way to go on carrying about our existence. If we carry on this way, then our intents would lose their original meaning, because then what is honesty if we can't even use the words the way we feel suits our feelings the best...

I don't know what to say about the moderation, because I don't really see deletions being handled (I'm in a different time zone), so maybe there are things there to be improved... but I think bringing in Vicky's personal writings, not just how she carries on about her moderating... that's too far. She is a human being and I think entitled to not only her beliefs, but her own method of speech.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Maru

Why the need to control so much how others writes and speak? It's their words, in their personal manner of speech. Anyone can speak however they'd like... if you mean, that that people should shift their words away from what may cause offense. Well, that's pretty much how life works isn't it... we live and breath and sometimes that may cause offense to others. We have to all make compromises with each other on a daily basis to coexist. This is how we get on in a multicultural society...

I think, tolerance is a two way street. Vicky's been giving folk her time and ample respect to answer these questions, some of them quite personal and offensive at various points, and to continue to have patient dialogue... that's quite a bit of patience if I may say... I think the best way to encourage non-superficial tolerance actually is to show it back when it is given to you.

Forcing people to agree with us or speak the way we'd like is not a way to go on carrying about our existence. If we carry on this way, then our intents would lose their original meaning, because then what is honesty if we can't even use the words the way we feel suits our feelings the best...

I don't know what to say about the moderation, because I don't really see deletions being handled (I'm in a different time zone), so maybe there are things there to be improved... but I think bringing in Vicky's personal writings, not just how she carries on about her moderating... that's too far. She is a human being and I think entitled to not only her beliefs, but her own method of speech.

Umm. Cause if you use the f word to describe a gay person it would be homophobic and you will be infracted. If you use the n word to describe a black person you will be infracted. That's entirely logical. However calling a transwoman a man is transphobia. Why is tibb tolerating transphobia but not other prejudices. The answer seems to be, because the moderating staff are ok with it and even use it themselves. Several people have brought up this transphobia before, and although I'm relieved that Vicky doesn't see it as transphobia, it just is. That is something she's understands incorrectly.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Withano

Umm. Cause if you use the f word to describe a gay person it would be homophobic and you will be infracted. If you use the n word to describe a black person you will be infracted. That's entirely logical. However calling a transwoman a man is transphobia. Why is tibb tolerating transphobia but not other prejudices. The answer seems to be, because the moderating staff are ok with it and even use it themselves. Several people have brought up this transphobia before, and although I'm relieved that Vicky doesn't see it as transphobia, it just is. That is something she's understands incorrectly.

It's not coming across that way to me

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Withano

Umm. Cause if you use the f word to describe a gay person it would be homophobic and you will be infracted. If you use the n word to describe a black person you will be infracted. That's entirely logical. However calling a transwoman a man is transphobia. Why is tibb tolerating transphobia but not other prejudices. The answer seems to be, because the moderating staff are ok with it and even use it themselves. Several people have brought up this transphobia before, and although I'm relieved that Vicky doesn't see it as transphobia, it just is. That is something she's understands incorrectly.

..but then if it’s being understood incorrectly, Withano...surely that would be the need for tolerance on the forum../...in discussions...because if these discussions couldn’t happen in the same way...’correct’ understandings would not be achieved...?...it is quite a complex topic...whereas f words and n words are not complex at all in their intolerance by staff...and it’s a fairly ‘new’ topic in terms of progression of understandings etc...’stifling’ will only surely...well stifle and hinder....

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

Umm. Cause if you use the f word to describe a gay person it would be homophobic and you will be infracted. If you use the n word to describe a black person you will be infracted. That's entirely logical. However calling a transwoman a man is transphobia. Why is tibb tolerating transphobia but not other prejudices. The answer seems to be, because the moderating staff are ok with it and even use it themselves. Several people have brought up this transphobia before, and although I'm relieved that Vicky doesn't see it as transphobia, it just is. That is something she's understands incorrectly.

What about male posters on here who call women love, darling, sweetheart etc in a mocking way, which is blatant sexism, and don't get infracted. You don't seem to have a problem with that. When it suits hey!

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Withano

Umm. Cause if you use the f word to describe a gay person it would be homophobic and you will be infracted. If you use the n word to describe a black person you will be infracted. That's entirely logical. However calling a transwoman a man is transphobia. Why is tibb tolerating transphobia but not other prejudices. The answer seems to be, because the moderating staff are ok with it and even use it themselves. Several people have brought up this transphobia before, and although I'm relieved that Vicky doesn't see it as transphobia, it just is. That is something she's understands incorrectly.

Vicky is either transphobic or she's not. It's been established already she is not. The penchant to then pull up on her personal wording and to suggest well let's fix this too, shift a word here and there... except this is what freedom of expression comes down to. It's in our words, on our own terms, when discussing our beliefs and how we frame logic in our own minds... it can't be restrictive if it's necessary to talk about certain topics and not impose a sort of cognitive dissonance on ourselves... it's shifting discomfort from one person to another is the way I see it.. is what this feels like in my mind, because let's be honest... she and the mods are being beat like a pinata for candy when they have no control over what others feel or believe. It's not just her mind, it's all our minds. We all have different views on this... and she personally is not trying to win anyone's affection for those beliefs or to change even their minds, that I can see? I even think some people just agree with this on their own terms? But supposedly some sin here is being committed here, although she is not transphobic, that makes her moderating intolerant? I think it's tolerant of her to not target people's thoughts over small things like out-of-context semantics when it comes to wording... something TiBB has never been all that sensitive to anyway when it comes to moderation. In fact the poster is given more benefit of doubt than not I'd say on most forums, and this isn't just related to trans discussions, but a lot of stealth trolling stays up, not just these particular lambs...we are arguing over virtue after this point, whether one action is more virtuous versus another.... but I think that her words and her courage to say what she actually means with conviction and to do this with tolerance of counter-arguments, that as well can be regarded as a virtue... and I don't know what to say to current or future transfolk, except, that this is the real world... one person's transphobia is another person's virtue, when we are being honest with ourselves and others and not mincing our words to suit the agenda of the day... we all think and come to different conclusions about what sex constitutes, the meaning of gender, the meaning of life even and to be fair, just about everything now is a moral contention ... I mean if it's not this, it'll be another. As if we are all virtue signaling and microaggressing the **** out of society.. and I do mean this, the oversensitive penchants do absolutely go both directions.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Maru

Why the need to control so much how others writes and speak? It's their words, in their personal manner of speech. Anyone can speak however they'd like... if you mean, that that people should shift their words away from what may cause offense. Well, that's pretty much how life works isn't it... we live and breath and sometimes that may cause offense to others. We have to all make compromises with each other on a daily basis to coexist. This is how we get on in a multicultural society...

I think, tolerance is a two way street. Vicky's been giving folk her time and ample respect to answer these questions, some of them quite personal and offensive at various points, and to continue to have patient dialogue... that's quite a bit of patience if I may say... I think the best way to encourage non-superficial tolerance actually is to show it back when it is given to you.

Forcing people to agree with us or speak the way we'd like is not a way to go on carrying about our existence. If we carry on this way, then our intents would lose their original meaning, because then what is honesty if we can't even use the words the way we feel suits our feelings the best...

I don't know what to say about the moderation, because I don't really see deletions being handled (I'm in a different time zone), so maybe there are things there to be improved... but I think bringing in Vicky's personal writings, not just how she carries on about her moderating... that's too far. She is a human being and I think entitled to not only her beliefs, but her own method of speech.

Great post Maru