Enforcement policy review (6/2010)

For technical issues, problems, bugs, suggestions on improving these forums, discussion of the rules, etc.
Post Reply
Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Enforcement policy review (6/2010)

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:51 pm

As far as I am concerned, being that our servers are hosted by a US company, and being that I have a strong inclination towards allowing free speech, I for the moment am using a generous version of the US test for what constitutes hate speech; that which incites violence or prejudicial action is what I'm watching for.
Well...what version are you using?
According to Wikipedia (cause i'm lazy and it fits):
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation.[1][2] In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.[3] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.
He is essentially writing something that advocated prejudicial action based on gender.
Seems to fit.

How does it advocate prejudicial action?
He advocates treatment of transsexuals purely based on his prejudices. Note that he has not used a SINGLE piece of evidence that is not purely semantical.
I don't see that in anything Who is like God arbour has posted, simply a strong desire to be completely and totally correct.
You honestly don't see anything wrong with it?
Try the usual litmus-test: Replace the category of persons that is offended with another category, usually race.
If you do that with WILGAs posts, you will see that he is using reasoning that could exactly be out of segregationists or anti-gay movement (his whole complaint about transsexuality not fitting into his language is identical to the "redefining marriage" BS).

He has not pointed a SINGLE harmful thing to society that would happen when transsexuals are given full rights according to their gender.
If he had done that, his arguments would at least be justified. He doesn't even do that, instead relying on peoples prejudice.
Or via gender-neutral pronouns. A reasonable compromise that should be acceptable even to a man who believes himself absolutely correct in his judgement of the situation and wishes to remain completely truthful in everything he says.
You don't get it, do you?
I am female. Why not address me as such?

Are you supporting his "let's create a new social class for transsexuals"-BS?
Twice, in fact. Now, review, for the sake of understanding, the actual enforcement policy. I anticipated several years ago that there would be complaints about uneven enforcement of the rules, and therefore decided that I would employ a very straightforward method of enforcing the rules.

Offenders are, under ordinary circumstances (which these are), permitted three warnings for rules violations before any temporary ban, with the space of one week of good behavior while active earning back one warning. Bans of human posters are extraordinarily rare here, even temporary bans, since a third warning is generally quite direct in tone.
You're kidding, right?
I'm not complaining about unequal enforcement, but your policy seems to be incredibly lenient and weak. I know no other forum where you can blatantly violate a direct order from the owner of the site himself without suffering ANY consequences.
Your site, your rules - but they really give a bad impression.
After reviewing the recent posting history (counter to popular imagination, I don't read every bit of text that passes through my server), I assume you are talking about his most recent post:
No, more than that. Do you actually read this thread?
It started all the way back on page four.
There have been about four instances where he used a male address, contrary to your own wishes.
Here we see the awkward pronoun cropping up. It is not referring, as a pronoun, to Serafina, but to some generic transwoman. He then continues to discuss the case of the generic transwoman, using the masculine pronoun:
And where is the bloody difference?
You do not want any insulting language. This IS insulting language towards a whole group of people.
So is this precisely the same thing for which I have warned him? Not precisely, as I'm sure he would be quick to comment were he here, with additions to the difficulty of discussing the appropriateness of pronouns without actually seeing fit to use them on nameless third parties.
So, instead of saying to a cop "you are an asshole", he stated "all cops are assholes" while talking to a cop. Big difference? Not really.
At the same time, this would have been a wonderful time to start practising with those gender-neutral pronouns I keep pointing to as a compromise option.
They are NOT a compromise. Explain why they are a compromise in your eyes, please.
Here, I believe you are overstating the case of your complaint. To hear you put it, he's advocating rounding up transsexuals, putting them in special camps, and beating them over the head with lead pipes.

This is hardly the case. You may debate with him or not at your leisure, but I'm not going to gag discussion of what is gender and what is sex.
No.
He is advocating creating a new social class for transsexuals.
In other words, segregation - mark them and give them different rights from everyone else.
And you honestly don't see anything wrong with that? Or do you not read what he posted?

His points are pure BS, they are based purely on semantics and ignoring evidence.
I repeatedly stated that a transwoman is born with a female gender identity, and that not treating her according to this identity is very harmful to her.
He COMPLETELY ignored that point without given any reason why, instead focusing on literary semantics and outdated biology.


Again, it is very simple:
Transwomen have a female gender identity. Not treating them as female causes great harm.
WILGA advocates NOT treating them as female, therefore he advocates causing harm to a group of people. He gives no reason that justifies doing so.

The female gender identity is most likely already there when a transwoman is born - he is therefore advocating discrimination based on a birth defect.
The harm that is done by this is very great - as an example, untreated transsexuals suffer from a much higher rate of depression and even suicide, while treatment lowers this significantly, and actual acceptance by others even more.
Since acceptance is so very important, making it institutional that transsexuals are not addressed according to their gender is essentially preventing that acceptance.

Again:
WILGA is advocating harm to transsexuals purely based on his prejudice.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Enforcement policy review (6/2010)

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:50 am

I've taken the liberty of moving this discussion to the appropriate forum section for discussion of the rules and enforcement policy, since that's most of what the post is concerned with and most of what I'm interested in discussing.
Serafina wrote:Well...what version are you using?
According to Wikipedia (cause i'm lazy and it fits):
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation.[1][2] In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.[3] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.
He is essentially writing something that advocated prejudicial action based on gender.
Seems to fit.

How does it advocate prejudicial action?
He advocates treatment of transsexuals purely based on his prejudices. Note that he has not used a SINGLE piece of evidence that is not purely semantical.
What is his "prejudicial action" advocated? Referring transsexuals as belonging to whatever sex they have been identified as via medical examination originally. What you might choose to define as prejudicial speech.

What precisely is the topic under dispute? What is in fact sex, gender, and the appropriate method of referring to transsexuals.

If you scan down the Wikipedia article, you'll notice that Wikipedia has a specific section on US hate speech law:
The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[33] and incitement to riot.[34] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[35] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[36] See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[37] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[38]
You honestly don't see anything wrong with it?
Try the usual litmus-test: Replace the category of persons that is offended with another category, usually race.

If you do that with WILGAs posts, you will see that he is using reasoning that could exactly be out of segregationists or anti-gay movement (his whole complaint about transsexuality not fitting into his language is identical to the "redefining marriage" BS).
I have selected, at random, one of the thirty posts written by him which mentions you by name, to apply your test. This turned out to be this post, which is mostly non-sensical with the substitution.

A great deal of rewriting is required to even make sense of the matter, and ultimately, to re-cast it is a segregationist piece, we must turn "male" and "female" into "black" and "white," replace "transsexual" with "mixed-race." Then we find that both W.I.L.G.A. and the position he appears to be addressing are both positions that accept existing segregation, with the opposing sides simply differing on whether mixed-race individuals should be forced into black or white facilities based either on their skin color or whether they should sort themselves out based on their "inner blackness" or "inner whiteness." So are you, too, a segregationist, just like W.I.L.G.A.?

While I personally may feel that genderblind accommodations are a superior path to take in the long term, it is quite true that I am in the minority. Advocating maintaining separate changing rooms and showers for men and women generally is not what we would class as hate speech.
You don't get it, do you?
I am female. Why not address me as such?
I do get it. And have been talking about you using feminine pronouns.
Are you supporting his "let's create a new social class for transsexuals"-BS?
Hardly. Although I do believe any invented pronoun making its way into common usage in English will find itself being used as a "third gender" pronoun when it does so. You may consider me a pessimist regarding this issue, unlike the activists who keep trying to get them to stick.
You're kidding, right?
I'm not complaining about unequal enforcement, but your policy seems to be incredibly lenient and weak. I know no other forum where you can blatantly violate a direct order from the owner of the site himself without suffering ANY consequences.
Your site, your rules - but they really give a bad impression.
It's quite common to use warnings or warning levels, from what I can tell; most boards allow some slack.

It's my opinion that SDN is quite excessively draconian in its regulation of speech. Still, your accusation of leniency does have a bit of truth to it. I've only issued one temporary ban in the history of the board. (I've issued a much larger number of permanent bans, dating from when we had spambots, but perhaps only 1-2 human users who were involved in spamming pornography on the board have been banned).
No, more than that. Do you actually read this thread?
It started all the way back on page four.
There have been about four instances where he used a male address, contrary to your own wishes.
For which he was warned. I.e., that has been the subject of enforcement under the rules.
So, instead of saying to a cop "you are an asshole", he stated "all cops are assholes" while talking to a cop. Big difference? Not really.
Actually, specifically, "(hypothetical scenario)... the cop is therefore an asshole." It's a relatively small difference, but on a board with more specific rules than be polite and nice to each other, such as a rule against insulting one another, it is a world of a distinction between saying "cops are assholes" and "you, a cop, are an asshole."
They are NOT a compromise. Explain why they are a compromise in your eyes, please.
Look it up. Got that list of definitions? Good.

A compromise falls in between two positions. Here, you wish to be referred to as female and not as male, because you believe that to be the truth. A GNP satisfies this partially by not referring to you as male. Who is like God arbour wishes to refer to you as male, and not female, because he believes that to be the truth. A GNP satisfies this partially by not referring to you as female.

To quote a wise person: "It's a successful compromise if both sides are unhappy with the deal." The fact that it's not what you want and that he hasn't done it indicates to me that it's a wonderful compromise. I should go start a career as a professional negotiating intermediary.
His points are pure BS, they are based purely on semantics and ignoring evidence.
I repeatedly stated that a transwoman is born with a female gender identity, and that not treating her according to this identity is very harmful to her.
He COMPLETELY ignored that point without given any reason why, instead focusing on literary semantics and outdated biology.
By and large, no, I have not been interested in following the details of your argument. The moment that I popped in and saw the two of you started splitting hairs about the German legal system I knew it was going to get very boring and very repetitive in a hurry. The only thing I've been really looking for are the times when you're rude to each other, and other people generally help bring those to my attention.

The rules of this board are not concerned with the quality or validity of argument. He may argue that humans are descended from space elves if he wishes, and cite astrological alignments in doing so.

Tell me why I should ban people for making invalid arguments. Make a case for it, if you like.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Enforcement policy review (6/2010)

Post by Who is like God arbour » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:14 pm

I want to comment on two or three points:
  1. In the thread »All about Serafina (Split)« I have never insulted Serafina nor was I rude. I never questioned Serafina's value as a person or questioned Serafina's character.

    That didn't happened even in the thread » Transsexuality and Rights - challenge to WILGA « where I merely told Serafina, that, considering the until then displayed behaviour, I do not respect Serafina more than the basic respect every human-being, even lazy or dumb persons and criminals, is getting from me.

    Note that I did not say with that that Serafina is a lazy or dumb person or a criminal but used that phrase to describe the level of respect, that is absolute and inherent and does not need to be acquired and cannot be lost or sold.
  2. I did not demanded or advocated that Serafina should be prosecuted or in any way harmed.

    The problem is that Serafina already felt threatened by what I think is the truth.

    Serafina's opinion is that it's already bigotry and insulting to argue about the question if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or a woman.

    Even if the debate itself is civil and factual (at least I'd like to think that what I said was civil and factual), Serafina felt already insulted because the debate happened at all.

    The only way to not insult Serafina would have been to never have an own opinion in the first place about this topic unless it is identical with Serafina's opinion.

    Either one agrees with Serafina that a person with a male sex (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) and a feminine gender is a woman or Serafina is insulted.
  3. Serafina even went so far to claim that my here expressed opinion is a hate speech and quoted a few sentences out of Wikipedia. One of these sentences was » In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. «

    Serafina failed to see that this is not a definition of hate speech but only the reason why hate speeches, regardless if they are expressed as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display, are forbidden.

    They are forbidden because they may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

    But that does not answer the question what a hate speech is.

    The possible or indeed happened result alone does not define what a hate speech is.

    Even an innocent comment or event can incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group or it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

    It does neither answer the question if stating my opinion here, on a relative small and insignificant board is a hate speech.

    What is clear is that my here expressed opinion is not able to incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

    In Germany, because Serafina as I are coming from Germany, a hate speech is if someone publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them or insults, maliciously slurs or defames them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity.

    That did not happened here. Neither did I publicly incited hatred against transsexuals nor did I called for violent or arbitrary measures against them nor did I insulted, maliciously slurred or defamed them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity.

    Serafina would probably object and argue that I already violated the constitutionally protected human dignity of transsexuals only by debating if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or a woman.
  4. Serafina even compared a debate about the question if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or a woman with the insulting of police officers. Serafina argued that to abstractly say that a a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man would insult Serafina personally as a individual police officer would be insulted if someone says that all cops are assholes.

    The inappropriateness of this analogy is missed by Serafina.

    The question if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or a woman is a factual debate. It is at least possible and defensible to say, that a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man.

    Furthermore, the question is one that concerns all male persons (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender. This is not an individual characteristic that can differ between such persons because it is a characteristic that unifies such persons and makes them transwoman at all.

    On the other side, it is clear that a police officer, although he may have one, cannot be an asshole. No debate is necessary about this.

    Only if one wants to use that term to describe a character trait, it could be argued if a human being has traits that are associated with metaphorical assholes.

    But even than it is an individual trait. Even if statistical the majority of police officers have traits that are associated with assholes, the individual police officer does not have to have such traits. It is not a unifying trait of police officers.

    If now one says that all police officers are assholes without being ready to check if that is really true for all police officers, that someone insults at least each individual police officer who does not have traits that are associated with assholes. In that moment, this someone does not want to argue the trueness of this expressed opinion at all but only wants to insult.

    But if one reaaly wants to debate if an individual police officer is an asshole or if all police officers have to be assholes because only assholes have traits that are necessary to become a police officer, it is not an insult, regardless if the individual police officer feels insulted by such a debate.
            • Although I have to admit that it would be advisable to try to use other terms that are associated with the traits that are associated with assholes. Insofar one could maybe argue that the intentional use of inappropriate terms is an insult. But even then this insult is not issued by the content of the debate but alone by the conduct of participants of this debate. Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it.
    But the solution can not be to forbid such a factual debate only because individuals may not like the outcome of it.



P.S.: Penis and testicles of a man can be removed by a so called penectomy. If such a genital surgical procedure is made for a transwomen, usually not the complete penis is removed. Instead, part or all of the glans is usually kept and reshaped as a clitoris, while the skin of the penile shaft may also be inverted to form the vagina (some more recently-developed procedures, such as that used by Dr. Suporn Watanyusakul use the scrotum to form the vaginal walls, and the skin of the penile shaft to form the labia majora).
But even if penis and testicles are completely removed, such a person has still XY gonosomes and no womb and not ovaries.
The question if such a person is already a woman only because their gender is feminine and maybe other plastic surgeries and hormone treatment have altered the appearance, is basically still the same.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Enforcement policy review (6/2010)

Post by Serafina » Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:57 pm

@WILGA:
In the thread »All about Serafina (Split)« I have never insulted Serafina nor was I rude. I never questioned Serafina's value as a person or questioned Serafina's character.
A blatant lie. Calling me male is an insult, plain and simple.
It also violated policy set by JMS.
I did not demanded or advocated that Serafina should be prosecuted or in any way harmed.

The problem is that Serafina already felt threatened by what I think is the truth.
Oh, really?
Then why did you advocate the implementation that results in violence, disrespect, persecution and bigotry?
Don't remember doing that? You advocated implementing a new social class similar to those of the Hijra, who have next-to no legal rights and are heavily discriminated against.

You are also constantly advocating that people refer to me as male - a policy which has been overturned as malicious and harmfull by the german supreme court.
Serafina's opinion is that it's already bigotry and insulting to argue about the question if a male person (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) with a feminine gender is a man or a woman.

Even if the debate itself is civil and factual (at least I'd like to think that what I said was civil and factual), Serafina felt already insulted because the debate happened at all.

The only way to not insult Serafina would have been to never have an own opinion in the first place about this topic unless it is identical with Serafina's opinion.

Either one agrees with Serafina that a person with a male sex (XY gonosomes, penis, testicles, no womb or ovaries) and a feminine gender is a woman or Serafina is insulted.
Yes, that is bigotry - because it ignores facts and science based purely on your oppinion.
Furthermore, it IS insulting, since i do not see myself as female.
Last but not least, it is medically necessary that i am able to life as a female, which bigotry like yours makes impossible.
Serafina failed to see that this is not a definition of hate speech but only the reason why hate speeches, regardless if they are expressed as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display, are forbidden.
And for the same reason, a decent forum would at least demand that you back up your claim with more than just a dictionary.
P.S.: Penis and testicles of a man can be removed by a so called penectomy. If such a genital surgical procedure is made for a transwomen, usually not the complete penis is removed. Instead, part or all of the glans is usually kept and reshaped as a clitoris, while the skin of the penile shaft may also be inverted to form the vagina (some more recently-developed procedures, such as that used by Dr. Suporn Watanyusakul use the scrotum to form the vaginal walls, and the skin of the penile shaft to form the labia majora).
But even if penis and testicles are completely removed, such a person has still XY gonosomes and no womb and not ovaries.
The question if such a person is already a woman only because their gender is feminine and maybe other plastic surgeries and hormone treatment have altered the appearance, is basically still the same.
You are horribly uneducated, considering that this has now been an issue for more than a weak.
Sex reassignment surgery is NOT a penectomy. Indeed, only the erectile tissue is removed. This IS a blatant error, since even Wikipedia states that this is not a penectomy.
Besides, Suporns method is clearly surpassed by several german surgeons such as Dr. Liedl or Dr. Schaff (both in Munich) or Dr. Seibold (in Tuebingen), where no parts of the scrotum are needed and the result is far superior. Not that much of an error but a clear indicator that you did next-to-no research.
To put it simply: Suporns method was developed for external perfection, which is often required to avoid bigots like you.
Liedls method is more about personal satisfaction and functionality, but is still delivers results that can fool gynecologist.


As for your policy to simply take the genome as the ultimate measurement:
It is essentially discrimination based on ones biology, something one can not possibly change.
Furthermore, it is also HARMFUL, since such a policy essentially ruins a transsexuals chance of having a normal, happy life. If bigots like you were responsible for the actual policies, transsexuals would have no method of being recognized as their gender.


@JMS:
I don't care much for your policies.
However, i would like to point out that you let bigotry, prejudice and open declarations of them and disgust run rampart.
I don't need rules to protect me, i have discussed in worse pits than this one.
But it's your choice whether you want to stop discrimination or not, and whether or not you want minorities to be safe from such attacks and feel welcome.

Post Reply