1358
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 26 Jul 2023
1358 points (99.4% liked)
Malicious Compliance
18048 readers
7 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So I thought I would look at the modlog in this thread
A comment was removed starting with
by @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
Heavily downvoted sure, but what rule is it breaking?
They were banned for transphobia. Finish that comment. Don't cherry pick their words. Transphobia and bigotry are against the rules here. As a cis person, I don't get to decide what is transphobic; trans people do.
If we can tell the differences between woman, why do different rules apply depending if youre born woman or not?
Besides having an opinion about something that doesnt affect you, seems quite reasonable is it not?
Trans women were born a woman. I'm not trans so I don't get to decide what is or isn't transphobia just like I don't get to decide what's racist towards black people because I'm not black. I don't get a vote because it doesn't affect me.
Imotali got it right, that is exactly how it works :) most people who are transgender know that they are transgender before they know the meaning of the word "transgender". It also looks like you're confusing two terms that sound a lot alike but mean two different things.
What you're calling "biological sexuality" is really just called "sex" ~~or "sexual identity"~~. It's concerned primarily with categorizing a person's physiology into one of two groups based on the average of several traits, with lots of variance possible between individual members of those groups. This is what TERFs incorrectly call being a "biological man or woman". Note that it has nothing to do with presentation, performance, speech, and other non-physiological traits--those all relate to gender, not sex.
"Sexual identity" refers to the intersection of sex, gender identity, gender roles, and sexual orientation.
Well, I'm glad you made this comment, poorly phrased as it is. I went back and double-checked the scientific definitions of the words I used, and I included a word as a synonym where it actually is not a synonym. I've gone back and fixed my comment to avoid spreading misinformation.
Now to answer your accusation and your question, in that order:
First, the accusation that this is "my position" and a "claim"-- that is not the case. This is the established consensus of the scientific and medical communities, and I am just repeating what they said. If you have a problem with that, go to your local hospital and argue with a doctor or something.
Now, for your question-- I didn't say anything resembling that at all. I corrected their terminology from "biological sexuality" to just "sex" because that's literally what biologists call it--sex. Then I made the points that sex is based on lots of traits, not just the one, and that there is a lot of variance in what we call "male" and "female". That doesn't deny the existence of sex, all it does is say that biology mostly operates in spectrums, not binary systems.
Sorry, but I do take issue with that assessment. Societal pressure is one hell of a drug at creating denial and it can take a very long time before you are able to admit to yourself what you are (There is a reason why the term “egg” is thrown around so much these days). As a trans-woman who has only recently had a partial outing (though now with the goal to go through with it all the way) and still struggles with how much my gender-dysphoria fluctuates between unbearable and non-existent you are essentially telling me, that I’m an imposter because it took me 10+ years since I met the first trans-women to finally come to terms with myself.
Also, when I’m already at it, not to you but as a big fuck-you to any transphobes who may read this: I guess I owe you pieces of human garbage some thanks, because all your hate-speech gave rise to so much awareness and support from people who I considered respectable in the first place that I felt a lot more comfortable to come out as who I am, for most people around me had made pro-trans comments at one point or another.
That's why I used the word "most" :) I don't want to invalidate anyone's personal lived experience.
And I'm not saying that people have the full picture the second they're born, just that once someone has that egg-cracking moment and looks back at the rest of their life suddenly, in hindsight, lots of mannerisms and desires and personality quirks make a lot more sense. That's how I felt when I realized I was nonbinary-- I always felt the way I always felt, but I only recently decided to attribute the label of "nonbinary" to those feelings
Prove they're genetically not a female. You can't without genomic testing. And forcibly testing for so many people (literally everyone who claims to be a woman) is both unethical no matter the reasoning and logistically impossible.
Therefore you can't prove they aren't a woman.
Yes it does. Your position requires you be able to prove definitively they are "not biologically women"
If you cannot your entire argument falls apart. That's unknowable. You cannot know they are biologically women so using that term is just a smokescreen for bigotry.... and shows you lack an understanding of human sexing (which is objectively not a binary)
You aren't the judge of when someone is or isn't a woman, though. The only person whose opinion matters in that case is the woman herself.
I don't think they got banned? not sure
I didn't post the whole comment precisely because it got removed by a mod.
In my view, the moderation of a forum should be based on rules, not on individual's judgements.
I banned them. And transphobia is against the rules of this entire instance (not just this community).
I think the issue is that there is no such thing as a "biological woman". Manhood/womanhood is an issue of gender, not sex, and gender is something that we collectively made up whose meaning varies from person to person and from culture to culture. The only person who is capable of saying "Person McFaceface is/is not a woman" is Person McFaceface.
Even if we were to interpret their comment to mean "sex", that isn't a simple binary yes/no kind of question. There is no single trait that determines maleness or femaleness, and lots of people have traits indicative of both sexes or of neither sex (or they were born that way then surgically altered shortly after birth), and sometimes those traits are so hidden and so internal that the person themself doesn't know about it.
But do you think it deserved to be removed? You could have answered that directly to the commenter
IMO, this is too strict.
Yes, I do. This is a space where trans rights and trans people are respected. That means that their existence is accepted as fact, not debated in the comment section.
There are numerous places and resources available for that person to educate themself, if they had chosen to do so before commenting. Instead, they chose to comment from a place of ignorance. We have no obligation to offer them that education here.
It's a good thing that this isn't what's happening, then :) if people were treating trans people's every feeling with rubber gloves, then we wouldn't be four times as likely as a cisgender person to be the victim of a violent crime
We don't want the rubber glove treatment. All we want is to have the same right to bodily autonomy as straight white American men do-- free to go where we feel comfortable AND comfortable in our own skin wherever we go, with no one trying to legislate away our mastership over our own bodies.
I'm just enforcing the rules of this instance. Specifically hate towards any specific group (which includes rhetoric designed to oppress) is against the rules.
Sorry, not sorry. In fact, I took great joy in removing the transphobes from this comment section. I only removed egregious errors.
In a way you could say I'm maliciously complying with the instance rules.
I got that yesterday, why the encore?
use that tiny amount of power you say you enjoy so much and ban me. This good people circlejerk is of no interest
You've not said anything rule breaking, let alone transphobic enough to be banned. Saying unpopular things will not get you banned/comment removed.
Is being a terrible person with bad takes against the rules? I haven't checked.
Thee has't did challenge the hive mind, anon prepareth to receiveth downvot'd to oblivion
I actually think a lot of people are confused because they didn't read the article or know what community they're in, so I'll take the downvotes in stride.
Trans people are people too no matter which arrow you hit.
Mods are hive minds? Are you sure about that?
Not talking about the other guy, but about the guy who I was answering