TERFs Should Be Restricted to OI

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I personally think TERFs should be restricted to OI with the rest of the reactionaries. It's an ideology promoting the persecution of trans women, a marginalized and oppressed group of people.

[Thirsty Crow]

The problem as I see it is how it is to be determined who's an advocate of the TERF viewpoint, and even then I don't think the issue would be as clear cut as to have that person "advocating the persecution of trans women". That being said I do agree completely with the idea behind this, that this is more than a problematic subsection in feminism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I personally think TERFs should be restricted to OI with the rest of the reactionaries. It's an ideology promoting the persecution of trans women, a marginalized and oppressed group of people.

I would go so far as say banned but whatever.

You're probably more reasonable than I.

[Slippers]

I agree with this sentiment.

[consuming negativity]

Who has been trans-exclusionary that hasn't been restricted?

[Five Year Plan]

I agree! (And what was the point of this thread again?)

[Futility Personified]

What does TERF stand for?

[The Feral Underclass]

What does TERF stand for?

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

[BIXX]

Why not ban/restrict anyone who is a piece of shit to oppressed folks, furthering their oppression? That's the only way this makes sense, skip calling it "TERF" or whatever just get rid of them.

[PhoenixAsh]

People who express Transphobia or advocate Transexclusion are already restricted or banned.

[TC]

Anyone who actually wants to persecute anyone is obviously reactionary but Danielle Ni Dhighe has already demonstrated an inability to distinguish between people who want to persecute trans people and people who simply disagree with certain theories advanced by some (though not all) trans activists based on feminist theory.

How about actually promoting egalitarianism, tolerance, and mutual respect and understanding instead of witch-hunting feminists who are insufficiently deferential and accommodationist towards essentialist demands?

[Rosa Partizan]

absolutely agree, but I'm not aware of TERFs posting here.

[Dagoth Ur]

Would I be a TERF if I oppose SRS? Even as a transwoman?

[#FF0000]

Sounds like a completely unnecessary rule tbh

[Sinister Intents]

I personally think TERFs should be restricted to OI with the rest of the reactionaries. It's an ideology promoting the persecution of trans women, a marginalized and oppressed group of people.

I say restrict them to OI so we can torment them, no just ban the fuck out of these assholes

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Transphobes are already supposed to be banned.


Would I be a TERF if I oppose SRS? Even as a transwoman?

What does "opposing SRS" mean? That you don't want to do it? That you think it should be banned? That you want to shame people who do it?

[The Jay]

The current policy appears to cover this issue already, doesn't it?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Anyone who actually wants to persecute anyone is obviously reactionary but Danielle Ni Dhighe has already demonstrated an inability to distinguish between people who want to persecute trans people and people who simply disagree with certain theories advanced by some (though not all) trans activists based on feminist theory.
Ironic, considering as a trans feminist I'm critical of problematic ideas within the wider trans community, and we might possibly agree on some of them. I don't think you know me quite as well as you imagine.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

People who express Transphobia or advocate Transexclusion are already restricted or banned.
So it's already in the forum rules? Good. That clears that up.

[PhoenixAsh]

So it's already in the forum rules? Good. That clears that up.

It is under the section social predjudice:


Social Prejudice

Every time a user is given a infraction for a severe offense, such as sexist, racist, or homophobic posting, her/his position on the board can be reviewed with a poll with these options:

Do nothing
Restrict
Ban

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It is under the section social predjudice:
But not explicitly, from how it's worded.

[PhoenixAsh]

But not explicitly, from how it's worded.
Sorry...


It is mentioned specifically early on in the forum rules:



You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not post any material which is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, antisemitic, knowingly false and/or defamatory, hateful, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules

If you feel it should be mentioned more explicitly in the social prejudice part of the rules you can make a proposal to amend the rules here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/proposal-forum-f239/index.html

I was doing it for you. But then I read the above part. And I am not entirely sure how you want the proposal to read. I suggest to expand it to LGBTQ-phobia.

Trans-exclusion isn't specifically mentioned in the rules however.

[Dagoth Ur]

What does "opposing SRS" mean? That you don't want to do it? That you think it should be banned? That you want to shame people who do it?
I oppose it as the logical endpoint for transpeople. If you want to do so, I have no problem with it. It is just a lot of people's first comment upon learning of your transnature say stuff like "so when do you plan on The Surgury?"

It is better, I think, that we accept a world where men can have vaginas and women can have penises.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If you feel it should be mentioned more explicitly in the social prejudice part of the rules you can make a proposal to amend the rules here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/proposal-forum-f239/index.html

I was doing it for you. But then I read the above part. And I am not entirely sure how you want the proposal to read. I suggest to expand it to LGBTQ-phobia.

Trans-exclusion isn't specifically mentioned in the rules however.
Thank you. I'll think about how it could be best worded, and then post it over there.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I oppose it as the logical endpoint for transpeople. If you want to do so, I have no problem with it. It is just a lot of people's first comment upon learning of your transnature say stuff like "so when do you plan on The Surgury?"

It is better, I think, that we accept a world where men can have vaginas and women can have penises.
Agreed 100%!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I oppose it as the logical endpoint for transpeople. If you want to do so, I have no problem with it. It is just a lot of people's first comment upon learning of your transnature say stuff like "so when do you plan on The Surgury?"

It is better, I think, that we accept a world where men can have vaginas and women can have penises.

I'm not sure that that would even qualify as being opposed to SRS but rather the annoying questions that every transwomyn hears upon someone finding out they are trans.

[Orange Juche]

It'd be nice if they were, wouldn't it?

[Luís Henrique]

I personally think TERFs should be restricted to OI with the rest of the reactionaries. It's an ideology promoting the persecution of trans women, a marginalized and oppressed group of people.

Danielle,

while I agree with you that TERFs are a problem, I am not sure that restriction is the way to go.

One point is that I think we should restrict behaviours, not people. If someone wants to discuss whether transwomen are "real women", this should be done in OI, no doubt. I am not sure that a person who wants to question whether transwomen are "real women" should be barred from discussing, say, abortion rights, or the labour theory of value, in the main forums.

Of course, if someone advocates violence against transpeople, then they should be banned. And if the only subject they seem interested in discussing is the concoction of apparently radical arguments against transexuality, I would argue they should be banned, too. And if their transexclusionarism isn't the only issue on which they hold reactionary position (for instance, if they are transexclusionary and pro-life, or pro-markets, etc.), then they quite probably should be restricted.

Luís Henrique

[Orange Juche]

Danielle,

while I agree with you that TERFs are a problem, I am not sure that restriction is the way to go.

One point is that I think we should restrict behaviours, not people. If someone wants to discuss whether transwomen are "real women", this should be done in OI, no doubt. I am not sure that a person who wants to question whether transwomen are "real women" should be barred from discussing, say, abortion rights, or the labour theory of value, in the main forums.

Of course, if someone advocates violence against transpeople, then they should be banned. And if the only subject they seem interested in discussing is the concoction of apparently radical arguments against transexuality, I would argue they should be banned, too. And if their transexclusionarism isn't the only issue on which they hold reactionary position (for instance, if they are transexclusionary and pro-life, or pro-markets, etc.), then they quite probably should be restricted.

Luís Henrique

So if they're bad on this issue, let them stay, but if they're bad on the issues that have been getting people into OI for years, keep it that way? Oh that's just dandy.

I mean, unless you're trans, but I suspect you aren't.

I think they should be banned.

[Luís Henrique]

It is better, I think, that we accept a world where men can have vaginas and women can have penises.

It would be even better, I suppose, if we could agree that a person can have a penis and breasts, or a vagina and a beard.

Or that a person can be both a man and a woman simultaneously or sequentially, or neither man nor woman.

Luís Henrique

[Ritzy Cat]

Or maybe that gender doesn't even exist ???

[DOOM]

Would I be a TERF if I oppose SRS? Even as a transwoman?


Transphobes are already supposed to be banned.



What does "opposing SRS" mean? That you don't want to do it? That you think it should be banned? That you want to shame people who do it?

I'm sorry, but what or who is a SRS?

[PhoenixAsh]

Sex reassignment surgery

[Luís Henrique]

Or maybe that gender doesn't even exist ???

Well, as of August 11, 2014, it quite obviously exists. Whether it should exist, that's another problem.

Luís Henrique

[Lanfear]

Would I be a TERF if I oppose SRS? Even as a transwoman?

As a transwoman why would you oppose SRS? Genuine question

[Luís Henrique]

As a transwoman why would you oppose SRS? Genuine question

Because she wants to be a woman with a penis?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Based on what?

Quite probably on the idea that gender is a social construct, and that social constructs, somehow, don't "exist".

Luís Henrique

[DannyMorin]

Why was this thread trashed: revleft.com/vb/zionists-should-restricted-t190094/index.html

But this thread is not?

[PhoenixAsh]

Because I suspect that this is because you currently seem to be trolling the forum.

Other than that...I have no idea as the action hasn't yet been logged.

[DannyMorin]

Because I suspect that this is because you currently seem to be trolling the forum.

Why is the validity of the issue being ignored because people don't like the OP?

[PhoenixAsh]

Why is the validity of the issue being ignored because people don't like the OP?

I suspect because the issue was brought in a "there is a Jewish Conspiracy" sense and used language that was strangely, but I am sure entirely coincidental, similar to those of the far-right.

Seeing that in the the light of the fact that you are a very, very new user with a very small post count...without any established relationship (unlike the OP which you seem to be dissing entirely; while simultaneously dismissing the seriousness of the thread issue) to the board...and are already demanding amendment of board policy...while similarly responsible for such gems as "Why is there an admin class on this board" and have on previous occasions used prejudiced language....you have at the very least overestimated social context and reach....and have created the absolute appearance and illusion that you are trolling.

Again...I am not sure as the action has not yet been logged. I am merely extrapolating what I surmise may have happened and been the rationale. This is a subjective opinion and not one that is based on actual information.