Feddit UK

Step One: write a harry potter book

Good point, that's definitely something I see fairly often. I don't like it myself (also trans), but should be on here.

Especially as all A*AB terms easily mistaken for "All * are Bastards" ala ACAB.

Depends on which guideline they break. The 41% one will probably be an insta-ban. Others will likely be an initial warning followed by temp bans escalating to a permaban.

What an absurd comment. As if defederation were ever a suggestion? As if it were even possibility? I'm struggling to understand what point you were even trying to convey here.

Did the previous lack of transphobia-specific guidance somehow negate the fact that abuse and bigotry, including transphobic bigotry, was already against the rules and banworthy in this instance? Do we constantly having our finger hovering over the 'defederate' button, just in case an instance is not deemed ideologically pure enough?

Well apparently, yes! In spite of the fact that this guidance takes a very sensibly neutral tone, it is precisely that neutral tone (predating this specific guidance, but as a response to the same neutrality that it embodies) that has directly resulted in this instance being defederated by at least one major instance already.

That the fediverse supports defederation does not mean that it's acceptable for everyone to bring it up at every opportunity, as if it should be the action of first response. Defederation is a last resort for rogue instances, and to bring it up outside of that context is dreadfully gauche.

Not sure trans phobia and perpetrated are correct terms. The purpetrrate tends to indicate a choice. Where phobia dose not tend to.

A phobia is an irrational fear but normally not one that can be controlled.

Transfasism may be a better term.

You really accomplished something with that comment, didn't ya, buddy?

I understand this. I think what kind of annoyed me the most is

Just as it's racist to believe that black people are inherently less intelligent, even if you don't necessarily hate them, it's transphobic to believe that a trans person's identity is worth less or is less valid that a cis person's, even if you don't feel any malice for trans people.

I don't really think it's fair equivalence to make. I think it would be transphobic to claim someone is less intelligent or should be penalised in society, although I am probably approaching this with a philosophical/theological view rather than how people should be treated.

I don't really like the idea of being told how to think about things. I think this is a slight step too far, if it means forcing someone to agree with something they're not comfortable with agreeing with.

I'd rather if there was a more clear-cut "this is a controversial issue - please don't talk about it". I wouldn't expect a transgender person to have to care about anyone else's moral convictions except their own. As long as they're treated equally. So I think I can moreso accept a "please don't talk about it" as I think any such discussion about "what is a man/woman" isn't actually a productive way of looking at things. Because moreso what concerns me isn't if people should be given gender affirming care, but at what stage is it appropriate and who should pay for it.

Another thing I don't really like about it:

For a more in depth look at the question, and why anti-trans activists are wrong about it, see the Lonerbox video "What Is A Woman?" A Response to Matt Walsh. (Fair warning contains a lot of Twitter lefty shitposter jokes/language).

Is this really unbiased if it's what "Twitter lefty shitposter"s think? I've found that group to be pretty toxic and malicious, and chosen to avoid that crowd.

But apart from that, the guidelines are quite clear on how to act on the instance. I just wish there was more dialogue about the issue.