Well...what version are you using?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.
According to Wikipedia (cause i'm lazy and it fits):
He is essentially writing something that advocated prejudicial action based on gender.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.
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.
You honestly don't see anything wrong with it?I don't see that in anything Who is like God arbour has posted, simply a strong desire to be completely and totally correct.
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.
You don't get it, do you?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.
I am female. Why not address me as such?
Are you supporting his "let's create a new social class for transsexuals"-BS?
You're kidding, right?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.
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.
No, more than that. Do you actually read this thread?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:
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.
And where is the bloody difference?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:
You do not want any insulting language. This IS insulting language towards a whole group of people.
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.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.
They are NOT a compromise. Explain why they are a compromise in your eyes, please.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.
No.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.
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.