Proposal Regarding Pronouns (discussion)

[Broomstick]

As Wong the Mighty has decreed that he wishes to make this board a place where all of the LBGT community feel welcome, and also on the off chance anyone intersex wanders over here (which happened at least once on another board I'm on), and in order to avoid unresolvable shitstorms in the future, I propose the following:

1) Any transgender, genderqueer, or person of ambiguous gender will be consistently referred to by THEIR preferred pronoun of choice. Referring to such individuals by the pronoun of the opposite gender, or as "it" (unless that person chooses that pronoun - I'm trying to cover all possible permutations here), or as anything else other than their stated preference will be a punishable offense and repeated offenses are grounds for banning. If the first offense is particularly egregious that, too, could be grounds for a ban.

2) Personal attacks based solely on a person's transgender, genderqueer, or ambiguous gender are not permitted.

3) As there is some controversy around the whole issue, posters do have the right to express their true and honest dissenting opinions on these matters in a general sense, but not directed at a particular person here. When doing so they are strongly encouraged to avoid inflammatory language.

Please feel free to comment and discuss. In particular, I'd like to hear from the LGBT folks of course but certainly everyone is free to pitch in.

[Imperial Overlord]

I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to transgendered individuals, but I thought it was fairly well known that the appropriate pronouns to use are the ones associated with that individuals gender identity.

[Broomstick]

Well, yes, of course, however this would not apply to mistaken identity (such as with a new poster who may be mistaken for a man or woman while being the opposite due to the nature of the internet) or circumstances where there is no way for a person to make a 100% determination of gender. For example, when I first joined up I was referred to as male for months and simply never bothered to correct anyone because I didn't feel my gender was relevant to the topics I was involved in, and even now if I am mistakenly referred to as male I don't get upset about it because it's not an issue for me. That's not what I was intending. I was (attempting) to refer to circumstances where the wrong pronoun is used deliberately to cause hurt, as was the case with one of transwomen being called "it" recently. (Yes, we know the names involved but I'm trying to keep this impersonal here to avoid another storm of anger, righteous or otherwise)

I think we're capable of distinguishing between the two circumstances - after all, for years I've been seeing people post, very calmly, "BTW, Broomstick is a girl/woman/lady/female" when someone new or not familiar with me guessed the wrong gender. We also all figured out pretty damn quick that the recently made PM was NOT a mistake, a wrong guess, or anything else of that nature.

As I told someone who recently PM'd me we really do have more than one transgender person here. I know this, because I have been PM'd by such people. I also know that they do not want to publicize their transgenderness because of such ugliness as recently displayed.

I am an XX heterosexual woman and thus I can not understand transgenderism on a visceral level. I am secure enough in my own gender identity that if someone DID attack me as was recently done to our "out" transwoman it could not possibly wound me as deeply - but then, no one who has met me in real life has ever questioned my identity as a woman. Clearly, this is enormously, horrifically painful to transgender people (I have been told so by more than one transgender person). I see absolutely no reason to hurt another human being in that manner, whether you agree with them or not, whether you even like that person or not. That sort of ugliness is the very reason Mike gave our "out" transwoman a pass on lying about part of her identity, and it's also the reason other transgender posters on SD.net are reluctant to come out of their closets. Frankly, I can't blame them one bit. Why the hell would anyone open themselves up to such an attack?

Personally, I'd rather have an environment where these other transgender people felt safe enough to come out and speak publically. All too many people are basing their opinions of the transgendered on just one or two examples (at most!) that dare to put themselves out in public and that is just... wrong. They are as diverse a group as any other, with different flaws and assets, and I wish they could be open and honest about who they are without fearing hate-filled, venomous attacks on them.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Since Broomstick specifically asked me to comment, I'll make the brief statement that I approve--but that this board is not a place where science can be disputed because of what someone "feels". The scientific evidence for the existence of a biological cause of transsexualism is largely accepted as indisputable and the number of professionals who disagree is about the same as the number of creationists who disagree with evolution. The two topics are completely interrelated--to deny the scientific evidence for the biological nature of transsexualism (or homosexuality) is identical to being a Young Earth Creationist in all respects, and people who do so on the board should be treated in the exact same way that we treat YECs. The biologically correct term for me and other transwomen is "Sex-inversed XY female"--and that term should be used in any discussion of the terminology of transsexualism. In the case of pronoun usage, that is straightforward. I'm a woman, and you'll use female pronouns with me, and any other transwomen on this board, or it should hurt.

I suggest that essentially the policy be extended so that racism and homophobia/transphobia are all brought together and have the same punishments. In the same way that there was a specific custom title for the World Church of the Creator types, we should create a specific custom title for homophobic/transphobic bigots and use it in the future should they use anti-gay slurs, anti-trans slurs, or intentionally use "it" or opposite-sex pronouns for transwomen or transmen. Further offenses should result in a permban.

Those are my feelings and proposals on the issue, per Broomstick's request.

[Imperial Overlord]

I don't think we need any new special rules for this. It's quite clear that bigotry against transgendered individuals as unacceptable under board rules as homophobia or racism. The pronoun issue apparently does need clarifying (as mind boggling as that seems to me), but we don't need to go any further than that because we already have the rules and procedures to deliver the appropriate punishments for hate speech.

[Broomstick]

From a member who wishes to remain anonymous - some of this I covered in my second post, but I delayed posting on this before the PM discussion ended:

What the fuck? Outside of fag, I cannot think of a single word that SDN has decided to ban. Deciding to somehow tell the forum how to treat other people is frankly, abit silly. Because the consquences is that someone, who doesn't know Marina, will call her he, it or whatever, simply by asumming the default "any person on the internet is male unless proven otherwise" will get flamed to a crisp.

We need to take a step back and realise that over the years, we've simply called each other what seemed appropiate and members were free to correct the other if they wished so. Also, it would be silly to assume that new members should look up every members posting history before calling them in any sort of gender fashion.

As I mentioned, we have the capacity to distinguish between an honest mistake and a delibrate insult. When I first started posting on SD.net I was assumed to be male and because it's not an issue for me, and because I didn't feel my gender was relevant to any of the discussions I was involved in, I simply never bothered to correct anyone. I would have absolutely no leg to stand on if I had suddenly chosen to protest because I had never corrected or STATED my gender. Indeed, when it was suddenly "revealed" to the board I was a woman a lot of other people got quite a bit more heated about folks referring to me as "he" than I did! (I still get mistaken for male on the internet on a regular basis. It doesn't (usually) bother me. But that's me. I'm not transgendered, no one who has ever met me in real life questions my gender, and so forth. MUCH different situation than what transgender people face daily) That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about new people, people who don't know a person, situations where there is genuine ambiguity, or anything of that nature. I'm talking about delibrate mis-use of pronouns when there is a STATED gender for a member. If someone makes the wrong guess regarding pronouns and is corrected and uses that correction no harm no foul. If that person delibrately continues to use the wrong pronoun that is what I mean the OP to address.

I'd like to explain myself further. Shep's and Poe's actions were out of line. However the rules proposed are ambigious. How would a person know how to treat another member? Would a member automatically have to know each and every gender? A first offense from a person who is not known to track board culture should just be corrected.

Dealt with above. This is for delibrate misconduct, not accidents or mistakes or ignorance.

The second rule is irrelevent, personal attacks on a posters life have never been acceptable. Regardless of whether a person is queer, TG, poor or anything else that can be personally used to attack a poster.

Then we need to enforce that a little more stringently around here. There is also the question of do we want to make that explicit (comparable to the explicit warnings about harassing female posters) or leave it as assumed in the current rules?

The third rule seems to again, be already part of the rules. Dissenting opinions are always accepted on SDN if backed up.

As Marina has pointed out, there is scientific backing for transgenderism. However, if someone says "I find anal sex disgusting" that is not an opinion that can be backed up, that's an expression of personal opinion/preference that is entirely subjective. Saying "I hate you because you have anal sex and that makes you a disgusting person" IS a personal attack and out of line. Likewise, expressing a general opinion about the transgendered like "they creep me out" or "I don't think sexual reassignment surgery is what we should be doing, they should be helped to be comfortable in their birth gender" without reference to a particular person should be permitted, but not "you're insane if you think you're X when you were born Y and you make me vomit".

I think a better approach for the thread is generally indicating the board as a whole should crack down on all personal attacks.

I agree.

[Coyote]

Lack of clarity has, unfortunately, led us to this point, though. Technically speaking, if one user gets an immediate boot for using the term "fag" as a perjorative, I see recent comments about physical status and deliberate pronoun use as equal to. But I've already stated that I personally don't want to see folks banned or titled over this because that lack of clarity has left us open. Banning & titling just begins a cycle of retribution or grudges and leaves bloody tracks that never fade easily.

But a clear and --at this point-- obvious statement that hate speech directed towards any sexual or gender status won't be tolerated will lay the law down for good. If certain individuals are well and truly bigoted agaist the transgendered, they'll have their chance to shoot themselves in the foot when they're ready. If, OTOH, it was a vicious comment made in the heat of the moment... then things can get going towards calm.

I think I'm with the majority here that felt that no hard-and-fast comments about sex, race, or other biased speech really needed to be made; it just wasn't acceptable... but apparantly we do need something to state the obvious. The rope will be there when it is needed, then.

[Broomstick]

Here is a comment from one of our other transwomen, anonymous by request, and without editing:

Dear Senator,

I am a poster who is one of the 66% of transgendered individuals who are not out on the board, or even inside GALE itself, who wishes that their name be removed.

In my opinion, refusing to punish any person for purposefully hurtful and disgusting speech meant to dehumanize and emotionally harm transgendered persons at their core is giving carte blanche to anyone to do the same whenever they like, in the heat of an argument or just out of bigotry.

It is similar to the "faggot" policy, excepting that you can refer to someone's gender by accident once before correct. However, "It" is never an accident. Refusing to acknowledge someone's gender is not an accident. What kind of board policy would it be if we disapproved of the word faggot and its use, but didn't punish people for using it beyond a slap on the wrist or a scolding?

If you want to make the board comfortable so that maybe a few more of those 66% will come out or feel less marginalized, it is almost a necessity that those in charge pursue transphobia with the same vigour that led to a banning after the single use of fag (Golan III), or a poster with less than 10 posts because he was overtly racist in the Refuge from Political Correctness (Baal's Thunderbolt). It has to be uniformly done- it shouldn't matter whether a poster is 3 months or 3 years old on SDN, or whether they posted on ASVS.

I'm not writing to say Shep has to be banned and crucified- he's at least mildly entertaining. Sometimes. But anyone, regardless of whether they're the official court jester and fool or not, has to be punished if something is to be a rule- either it's condoned behavior to insult transgendered people in such a way or it is not. There can't be exceptions to whatever punishment is deserved.

Sincerely,
Name Redacted

[Imperial Overlord]

Alyrium had some points in similar vein:

Respecting the use of pronouns, frankly this is a matter of common sense. It ought be patently obvious that a person not refer to another person as an "it" intentionally. Not only is this an intentional and hurtful blow against someone's gender-identity, which they may or may not have issues with (for example I often refer to myself in the third person with an It, and my brother refers to me as a she jokingly, but I am an odd cookie), but is frankly an attack on their humanity. We do not have a human-denoting neuter pronoun in the english language. Our only neuter pronoun is object-denoting. By calling someone, especially a transgendered person an It, you are not only insulting them but also dehumanizing them which is not ethically acceptable by any criteria I can think of.

Same goes with intentionally referring to another person with a different gendered pronoun with malice. One is attacking their internalized identity, which is just low. Calling someone a goose-fucking oxygen thief just does not compare to that level of malice.

It isnt about banning words, or useages. It is about banning a level of malice.

[Knife]

It seems so simple written out on a rule, but I worry about implementation. Basically if I call (random name) Lonestar a bitch, I'm in violation of these implied rules and that's going to be a problem.

[RedImperator]

Alyrium had some points in similar vein:

Respecting the use of pronouns, frankly this is a matter of common sense. It ought be patently obvious that a person not refer to another person as an "it" intentionally. Not only is this an intentional and hurtful blow against someone's gender-identity, which they may or may not have issues with (for example I often refer to myself in the third person with an It, and my brother refers to me as a she jokingly, but I am an odd cookie), but is frankly an attack on their humanity. We do not have a human-denoting neuter pronoun in the english language. Our only neuter pronoun is object-denoting. By calling someone, especially a transgendered person an It, you are not only insulting them but also dehumanizing them which is not ethically acceptable by any criteria I can think of.

Same goes with intentionally referring to another person with a different gendered pronoun with malice. One is attacking their internalized identity, which is just low. Calling someone a goose-fucking oxygen thief just does not compare to that level of malice.

It isnt about banning words, or useages. It is about banning a level of malice.

I'm inclined to agree. Repeatedly referring to a transgendered member as "it" is on the same level as repeatedly referring to a black member as "boy" or a gay member as "fag". It goes beyond mere insult into the realm of dehumanizing. Nobody is suggesting banning someone for accidentally calling a transgendered member by the wrong pronoun, any more than someone who was unaware a black member's race would be banned for calling him "boy" as a reference to his apparent youth or inexperience. But when you know a member is transgendered, and you refer to him or her as "it", there's no excuse. If Marina had been black and Shep had repeatedly referred to her as "that n*", this discussion wouldn't even be happening.

[Broomstick]

It seems so simple written out on a rule, but I worry about implementation. Basically if I call (random name) Lonestar a bitch, I'm in violation of these implied rules and that's going to be a problem.

"Bitch" is not a pronoun.

Unless one of our posters is an unusually intelligent male entity of the species Canis familiaris the term "bitch" would not fall under this rule.

[Coyote]

It seems so simple written out on a rule, but I worry about implementation. Basically if I call (random name) Lonestar a bitch, I'm in violation of these implied rules and that's going to be a problem.

"Bitch" is not a pronoun.

Unless one of our posters is an unusually intelligent male entity of the species Canis familiaris the term "bitch" would not fall under this rule.

I find your purposeful exclusion of Canis Latrans to be hurtful and an insult to my ethnic heritage!

Seriously, it is context-- it will be pretty easy to tell when something like that is being used in jest, by mistake, or on purpose.

[Pablo Sanchez]

As the staff member who made the call to ban Golan III, my reasoning in that incident was that homophobic slurs belong to exactly the same category as racial slurs, which people had on occasion been instantly banned for using. This is not a community which tolerates bigotry, and I consider it important that the board be a safe place for people of different sexual orientations, races, or whatever else comes up.

[Knife]

As the staff member who made the call to ban Golan III, my reasoning in that incident was that homophobic slurs belong to exactly the same category as racial slurs, which people had on occasion been instantly banned for using. This is not a community which tolerates bigotry, and I consider it important that the board be a safe place for people of different sexual orientations, races, or whatever else comes up.

Well, I want to point out my positions in all the shitfeasts here recently. Then; 'what ever else comes up' is the contention of quite a few people here who think they are indeed being squashed. Say 'fag' get banned. (I agree by the way I don't want people mistaking my argument with the status quo), say 'it' and it's a shitstorm. Say Republikkkan and it's cool.

I think a certain amount of a slippery slope fallacy has come across the board.

[Knife]

It seems so simple written out on a rule, but I worry about implementation. Basically if I call (random name) Lonestar a bitch, I'm in violation of these implied rules and that's going to be a problem.

"Bitch" is not a pronoun.

Unless one of our posters is an unusually intelligent male entity of the species Canis familiaris the term "bitch" would not fall under this rule.

I find that bitches post to be full of shit.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Well, I want to point out my positions in all the shitfeasts here recently. Then; 'what ever else comes up' is the contention of quite a few people here who think they are indeed being squashed. Say 'fag' get banned. (I agree by the way I don't want people mistaking my argument with the status quo), say 'it' and it's a shitstorm. Say Republikkkan and it's cool.

I honestly don't see any dissonance there, because party identification is really completely trivial compared with race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

[Broomstick]

Particularly since, at least in the US, party affiliation is not required and frequently changes multiple times in a lifetime. One chooses a political party, which is very different than race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

[Knife]

Fine and well to say; however, people coming into this joint see 'special interests' rather than aboved menitoned. Lip service is said in other threads about cutting newbies slack, but when you get into issues, people here are saying there are hard lines in SDnet. That's going to grate on people. Saying 'nigger' is bad and I agree, the ruthless attacks on people with anti foreigner ideals with being racists and saying if you don't like Mexican's you're as bad as those saying 'nigger' are the basis of the undercurrents we're seeing lately.

Change racial tensions with religious or geographical or any other political stance when someone latches onto a political hot topic.

Here's a hint; not all anti immigrants are racists. Not all Republicans are KKK members (hell more democrates were), not all southerners are rednecks are republicans are racists. The SDnet memme says other wise.

[RedImperator]

Knife, the difference between "nigger", or "faggot", or "it" (with regards to transmen and -women) and "hurf hurf, all southerners are rednecks" is that the former insults carry far more power. They're dehumanizing, not just insultingm which is why they ought to be treated more harshly. Now, as for "rargh, all Republicans are Klansmen", "all southerners are dumb", et cetera, I agree they're tired memes that get used as a substitute for substantive posts. But they're not in the same league.

And now that that's through, I feel like I should bring up another category: gendered insults, specifically the word "cunt", and specifically used against women. I'd be interested in hearing what the women on the board think about that word when used against themselves--is it like me being called a dick, with no real emotional impact, or does it burn more than that?

[Pablo Sanchez]

And now that that's through, I feel like I should bring up another category: gendered insults, specifically the word "cunt", and specifically used against women. I'd be interested in hearing what the women on the board think about that word when used against themselves--is it like me being called a dick, with no real emotional impact, or does it burn more than that?

It varies by nationality, because IIRC "cunt" is very common in British usage, but in American English I'm pretty sure that "cunt" is a solid level worse than "dick," "asshole," or "bitch". All I know is that if somebody called my girlfriend a bitch, I'd be mad, but if somebody called her the C-word, I'd be fighting mad.

[Broomstick]

And now that that's through, I feel like I should bring up another category: gendered insults, specifically the word "cunt", and specifically used against women. I'd be interested in hearing what the women on the board think about that word when used against themselves--is it like me being called a dick, with no real emotional impact, or does it burn more than that?

You know, I should be able to answer that, but the truth is I'm pretty thick skinned in some respects. I'd say "cunt" is worse than "bitch" and "asshole" but not something I'd call fighting words. I mean, yes, it's offensive, but not as offensive as some other words I could mention. It's also used against men sometimes, along with such terms as "douchebag".

I think there is an element of context at work. If I call someone an asshat, douchebag, dickhead, and scrotum licker and in the next post he calls me a cunt I'm not sure where I'd have any basis to complain, do you? On the other hand, something like "Cunts like you should shut up and make no noise unless you're being fucked, all you bitches are good for is producing sons" delivered in a tone of sincerity would be offensive because it's dehumanizing, reducing women to wombs on legs.

I think it comes back to Alyrium's point about malice.

[CmdrWilkens]

Truth be told I think PR.6, specifically "For that matter, anyone whose behaviour would be considered a violation of Canada's hate speech law may be banned" ought to cover speech, even pronouns, intended to be harmful or otherwise dehumanizing to any other person. Sure we aren't specifically issuing an edict in regards to pronouns but I think PR.6 should make it clear enough that use of hateful lanugage in reference to another person's identity is not accepted.

For all that I'm a rules nerd I don't think we need anything other than to be clear that hateful use of pronouns does fall under this.

[Publius]

New rules are entirely unnecessary. Hate speech is already prohibited by the board rules, and deliberate misuse of personal pronouns does not seem to be a sufficiently common problem to merit especial rulemongering. If someone refuses to use the appropriate terminology, it ought to be dealt with in the same fashion as any other obstinate misbehavior, on a case by case basis. At any rate, a problem of this sort is best left first and foremost to the prudential good judgment of the moderating staff.

[Knife]

Knife, the difference between "nigger", or "faggot", or "it" (with regards to transmen and -women) and "hurf hurf, all southerners are rednecks" is that the former insults carry far more power. They're dehumanizing, not just insultingm which is why they ought to be treated more harshly. Now, as for "rargh, all Republicans are Klansmen", "all southerners are dumb", et cetera, I agree they're tired memes that get used as a substitute for substantive posts. But they're not in the same league.

And now that that's through,

I think you missed my point. Saying 'nigger' and 'faggot' is easy as hell to figure out the inclinations over. But that is the point. All through this board are inclinations of Republikans (to name a prominent one) or fundies (I'm guilty). As a group we know that such slurrs are wrong but we also know that slurrs are common even in households where the kids are enlightened. Honestly; the group think for and against certain political views are directly responsible for the undercurrents here. We punish 'faggot' like we should and bitch about other slurs against minorites. However in our inclusiveness, we tend to fight against our own minorities. Open bigotry is wrong, and I think I'm on record on that. But in our own society we tend to be bigoted towards our own minority which actually represents a heafty percentage.

Example: the Iraq was is wrong. Few on the board will admit it. That doesn't mean there is difference in it. I agreed with the war and turned against it due to execution. WMD were a pretense to over reaching political and domestic needs. That's not what is discussed, rather, Bush was wrong. Ok, he's wrong. Doesn't stop the Republikan crap around here and I'm not a republican.

Discrimination against gays and transgendered is wrong. I'd vote no on Prop 8, but have a different reason for voting no on Prop 8 or, if you voted no on Prop 8 but for different reasons? Fuck you.

I'm not eloquent nor I'm I well spoken. I am well traveled and well versed. I agree with board tendencies most of the time, but the 'undercurrent' is what concerns me and I've expressed it before, publically and privately. Hell recently I've defended asshats and voted to ban shit heads. There is a certain amount of elitism here. Dogpiles, clicks, whatever...