Reducing Moderation Load for MN (continuation of Dealing with Inflammatory Posts)

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

I'm starting another thread - which is really a continuation of the previous post re dealing with inflammatory posts and comments. On Site Stuff, MNHQ have revealed more about their issues with FWR - i.e. the moderation workload. They need that reducing.

Please do also take on board the fact that the combative tone isn’t just in relation to goady posts or trolls - the majority of deletions take place in discussions where there isn’t a debate or conflict. It’s a root and branch problem.

What's the nature of the root and branch problem - is there a pattern to the deletions? Are they from certain OPs? Without fully understanding the problem, I am unsure what solutions to focus on - ie. will self policing the tone work as that assumes it's our comments that are the problem? Or is it, as I suspect, trolling that is increasing the mod workload?

I personally don't report much as I am conscious of their workload. Am I alone in this? Thus, I have asked them if they have analysed which accounts are doing the reporting (to see if Sealion and troll accounts are swamping them). Or is it the mods trawling through comments policing the tone??? Or is it us?

BTW @Datun has suggested pinning a post emphasising self policing. Great idea if it is us - but if so, what phrasing is OK and not? Would I be right in thinking saying "self id doesn't take sufficient account of concerns about women and children is fine"? But what is off limits? I still come back to what is that the root cause of the mod workload increase?

Secondly, I keep pointing out that Sealions/concern trolls use covert bullying so the pattern of someone's comments is important, not just a one off remark. As with coercive control in DV, each individual incident can seem inconsequential, but over time the drip, drip cumulative effect leaves women alternating between enraged and cowering. And with Sealions it's not just the comment reported but a pattern of covert bullying remarks consisting of dismissing others concerns, falsely accusing others(Transphobia), criticism that is based on distortion, misrepresentation or fabrication.

Where I think we may need to be smarter is in dealing with Sealions. I have heard it argued that the debate is needed. But if one is wasting one's time on Sealions, it just gives them more ammunition to report and complain about. It feeds them. Hence more mod workload. The only way I have found effective is not to engage with known Sealions. I just ignore them. I don't engage personally with them. So we potentially have a conflict between those who want to have the debate and yet at the same time needing to call time and IGNORE Sealions, after they have demonstrated an unwillingness to engage healthily. For example on the Inflammatory post - I would have preferred to call time on certain Sealions much earlier - there's no point in being nice if it defeats the object ie having debate with someone who wants to engage plus not increasing the mod workload.
Would love some of your thoughts…..

"we need a little bit more trans inclusion than you are currently comfortable with"

Can you elaborate on this?

I would keep exemptions for rape crisis and DV centres etc but I would call transwomen women and share the toilets with them. I don't know about shortlists.

I have a consistency problem here because I find it much easier to use the right pronouns and advocate rights when somebody passes "my own internal tests", as a friend put it. Which for me largely comes down to how well they pass, and that's wrong because you can't recognise rights based on the length of somebody's chin and it needs to be resolved.

Basically a moderate amount more trans inclusion than you advocate seems to me the least harmful option, not just for individuals but for, well, the moral standing of humanity as well, really, because I do keep seeing the same fears popping up about trans as we had for the gays and as a gay woman that worries me far more than the infringements you see as happening to women.

I have a consistency problem here because I find it much easier to use the right pronouns and advocate rights when somebody passes "my own internal tests", as a friend put it. Which for me largely comes down to how well they pass, and that's wrong because you can't recognise rights based on the length of somebody's chin and it needs to be resolved.

So how do you suggest this is dealt with? What is your definition of a trans person?

The "no one has a problem with "old school transexuals" rhetoric is no different from xenophobes denying being xenophobes, because they don't have a problem with foreigners they know personally.

I can see how it might seem that way. I think the reason for this is that 'old school transexuals' have body dysphoria which we can all understand.

Gender identity is something different. It's identifying with something imposed on us by society (girls like baking and cleaning, are no good at maths or parking etc.); it's a division of personality traits into masculine or feminine based on our biology which I don't recognise in myself or wish to perpetuate for my children.

I have a consistency problem here because I find it much easier to use the right pronouns and advocate rights when somebody passes "my own internal tests", as a friend put it. Which for me largely comes down to how well they pass, and that's wrong because you can't recognise rights based on the length of somebody's chin and it needs to be resolved.

Of course someone is not any more or less a woman based on their chin size or hairiness or personality - this is the problem with basing 'woman' on anything other than biology. Men can be 'feminine', women can be 'masculine' and that's great, it's the variety of life.

The "no one has a problem with "old school transexuals" rhetoric is no different from xenophobes denying being xenophobes, because they don't have a problem with foreigners they know personally...Whenever challenged, examples from aggressive tweets are brought up. I am friends with a number of transfolk, and follow a few more. They're all pretty openly advocating women's rights, and I never saw any of them posting any aggressive "die in a fire" crap.

Best not to exhibit the behavior you are criticizing in the same comment that contains the criticism.

There is currently an effort to replace UK law based on material reality with law based on subjective beliefs. History teaches us that this never ends well for women.
My question remains the same.
Can you mandate belief?
Can you codify into law the idea that some people can mind over matter themselves out of material reality and into the opposite sex, and must be treated accordingly?
It is like transubstantiation. A belief that no one actually believes.
Will you allow people to drug and mutilate children based on this belief that no one believes?

So how do you suggest this is dealt with? What is your definition of a trans person?

As I say, I don't know and my response is to err on the side of including them as much as possible. I know what it's like not to be a minority nobody understands and I have huge sympathy and I do not consider a dysphoric person delusional.

More than that, though, I think that the people who are willing not to be sure vs the people who think they definitely know is as big as distinction as 'TRA' vs 'TERF'. That's always my main point.

As I say, I don't know and my response is to err on the side of including them as much as possible.

Even if that completely undermines women's rights and legal protections?

No, as much as possible without completely undermining women's rights and legal protections. We disagree on where the line is.

I advocate including women who identify as transmen in every circumstance that applies to women, PLUS additional specific services that relate to their trans status.

Similarly, I advocate including men who identify as transwomen in every circumstance that applies to men, PLUS additional specific services that relate to their trans status.

This is not advocating for exclusion.

Where the relevant characteristic is sex, they should be included with their own biological sex.
Where the pertinent characteristic is a belief in gender, they should be entitled to associate with those others who proactively share the same belief. However this must NEVER involve co-opting people into a default status of sharing such a gender belief. It must always allow women such as myself to opt out of any category that involves determining a group shared identity.

I'm also willing to be sure about gravity existing, and don't feel any more shame about that than I do about recognizing that biological sex exists and has a massive impact on how people are treated throughout their lives.

We disagree on where the line is.

We do. And yet you say I'm inflexibly sure, and you aren't.

Most feminists and so-called "terfs" have for decades included transsexuals into women's spaces and included them in feminism using a reciprocal "honour system" based around trust.

This honour system is being eroded by Transgender advocates who no longer believe an attempt at "passing" is necessary and are frankly making a mockery of the whole relationship between women and transsexuals.

No woman on earth wholly and truly believes that a transsexual is a woman. We afford them the courtesy of saying so in trust.

The line is no line. Transexuals have not changed sex but we accept them because of their obvious effort and feelings of kinship. Self declaring your own sex despite your appearance is just obnoxious especially when you force us to deny reality.
I am happy for people to declare themselves Transgender and all the exciting expression that comes with that. Don't expect me to believe you've changed sex.

We disagree on where the line is.

We do. And yet you say I'm inflexibly sure, and you aren't.

Not sure what you're saying?

I do not consider a dysphoric person delusional.
The people suffering the dysphoria, on the other hand, do indeed know that their dysphoria is a delusion. They treat the symptoms to mitigate the suffering because they have not yet found a cure.
The currently advocated treatment of affirming the delusion is proving to be more damaging to the patient than the dysphoria.

I'd happily go out for a drink with Miranda Yardley, take Miranda along to lunch with my friends, include Miranda in the group of people who I invite to concerts, parties, etc. I don't think Miranda is a woman. This does not, as noted above, mean that I dislike Miranda, in fact I'd be happy to include Miranda in most things. Just not those things that are all woman for a reason, like the trip to the hot springs where we're all going to be naked. Even if I personally didn't care in that situation (and I might not, I've done things like that with gay men friends before and not cared) it would never occur to me to presume that my "I'm fine with this" overruled the "not fine with this" of other women.

and I do not consider a dysphoric person delusional.

I have to pick up on this, as a scientist who works closely with patients.
a dysphoroia is, by medical definition, a suite of delusional ideas about the self. Anorexia for example. BDD. The dysmorphic disorders are real and distressing and require appropriate treatment. Gender dysphoria is unique in that one treatment (and by no means the only or always correct treatment) is to change the person physically to meet the dysphoric vision.

So yes, medically and scientifically it is a delusion. I think the reluctance to acknowledge this comes from the stigma that delusional = bad. Delusional means not in accordance with reality - it’s not a judgement on the person themselves. It’s not a value judgement AT ALL. A dysphoric person is not lesser, or worse but neither do we as non dysphoric people change our realities to accord with theirs.

The TRA movement strongly opposes dysphoria as a concept by the way.

Not sure what you're saying?

That again you see yourself as more reasonable. Which is entirely subjective. I think it's unreasonable to redefine women as a class to include males.

And the big difference from many transactivists is that Miranda would respect your right to privacy and dignity, Angry.

Which is why I'd be happy to spend time with Miranda, Ereshkigal. Plenty of common interests, intelligent, generally seems like a good person, and respects my boundaries and those of other women, which for me as a feminist is in the "must have if I'm going to be friends with someone" category rather than the "optional, if it's not too much trouble" category.

@Hypermice I take your point but I would distinguish between AD / BDD and GD in that reinforcing a person's perception when they have AD / BDD only exacerbates their problem whereas there are very definitely trans people who are much better off after transition.

And we also have to distinguish between people who understand that their perception is at variance with other people's and those who don't.

The currently advocated treatment of affirming the delusion is proving to be more damaging to the patient than the dysphoria

If you are talking about transsexuals, then the current treatment is a lot better than the dysphoria.

The people suffering the dysphoria, on the other hand, do indeed know that their dysphoria is a delusion

Are you speaking about transsexual people thinking that their dysphoria is a delusion?

Because personally, I don't.

whereas there are very definitely trans people who are much better off after transition

There have been cases where healthy limbs have been removed in bdd and the person has experienced significant relief. So ethical quandary - how to balance mental distress with physical wellbeing, and medical ethics (first do no harm.)

One could argue that to treat physically in some circumstances is better on balance for some individuals. I’m still not entirely sure where I stand on that but I’d defer to the individual and their physician

The problem we have here though is that this goes beyond the individual and into wider society. This is not individual patients wishing to transition - its an organised lobby group trying to reduce women’s rights across the board.

GD is the only dysphoria where physical treatment is (sometimes) used as a legal option. Interestingly those suffering from GD usually ARE aware the thoughts are delusional - there are a couple of very eloquent trans women on here who have been kind enough to share their experiences. They are aware they are not natal women and have experienced relief via physical treatments.

My personal stance is that a third way must be found. We can, surely, retain sex based exemptions, treat those with gender dysphoria with respect and dignity and thwart the unpleasant MRA/TRA/AGP wing.

This doesn’t have to be a zero sum game - but removing the sex based exemptions would be.

That again you see yourself as more reasonable. Which is entirely subjective.

Of course it is. I've gone out of my way to say this. But that works both ways.

You're entitled to a) be perfectly sure and b) to think I'm wrong for not being perfectly sure. You're not entitled to insist that I adopt either of those opinions or call it a debate if the only outcome you will accept is everybody agreeing that you're right.

yetanothertranswoman
No, I am not.
My concern is with regard to what is being done to children and what is being done to women through the efforts to change the laws.
Whether or not you individually view your dysphoria as a delusion, as medically defined, is beside the point.

I distinguish between dysphoria and delusion; where dysphoria exists it may or may not be accompanied by delusion.

Dysphoria being a state of profound unease or distress with one's healthy and normal bodily anatomy, but delusion being for example, the false belief or conviction that one IS or should be a different bodily sex despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

GD is the only dysphoria where physical treatment is (sometimes) used as a legal option. Interestingly those suffering from GD usually ARE aware the thoughts are delusional - there are a couple of very eloquent trans women on here who have been kind enough to share their experiences

I have also shared my thoughts and have never described my thoughts as delusional. I have never said that I am a woman but I do know what my brain is trying to tell me about my body - and I believe that something biological is causing that. As to how 'the biology happened', I don't know.

My biology is not a delusion.