cross-posted from: https://discuss.online/post/12273255
I've only been on Lemmy a few days and I've already witnessed a lot of thinly veiled transphobia, anything from people dismissing the existence of trans people, to trying to claim we are predators. I've also seen people downvoted in the general communities for expressing trans support, or seemingly for no reason other than simply being openly trans or visibly queer. I know it's an ongoing effort to moderate transphobia on Lemmy, and the fediverse as a whole. We have to also address mentions of thinly veiled transphobia and transphobic users. Transphobia isn't just a differing opinion, it is a dangerous hateful sentiment which causes harm to vulnerable people and it needs to be addressed, at the instance and community level. We need to put in the effort to identify transphobic dogwhistles and language used by transphobes to eradicate this type of behavior from our communities and servers alike.
Some people will argue that the light stuff isn't something to worry about, but that's not true. This is a tactic they use to blend in with normies and make them think that nothing they are doing or saying is wrong. It's what transphobic right-wing YouTubers and Facebook users do to avoid being banned for hate speech. We are better than these corporations though, Fediverse is run by communities and for the users, we should not let these things slide as easily as Corporations do, they're in it to make money, we... We're in it to create a community for the users. Part of that means kicking out those who don't have all our best interests at heart.
I don't support transphobia, but this sounds extremely aggressive and almost unworkable. Who gets to decide what qualifies as "thinly veiled transphobia"? or "transphobic dogwhistles" and what approach is used to disperse bans?
For example, in many countries some people who might be generally supportive of trans people (in the sense that they would want you to be the best version of yourself) might oppose inclusion of transwomen in natal-women's spaces. Does this qualify for an automatic ban?
Some might claim this is transphobic, but my answer to that would be: How do you know? Do you speak the local language? Have you lived there? Do you have any knowledge about the region's history? Do you know what the attitude of the local LGBT community is to the above-mentioned example?
We shouldn't limit ourselves by the assumptions (and polemics) of a given region even if English is the lingua franca of the internet. A lot of people in the world speak English as second language.
I would definitely oppose this without addressing specifically what qualifies as "transphobia" and what the specific policies are with regards to moderator actions. Otherwise this is just some rampage witchhunt against perceived enemies.
It's easy, comments which dismiss or devalue trans people, attempt to undermine our rights, or justify or sympathize with transphobia count as thinly veiled transphobia. This is widely agreed upon by trans people and their allies alike.
This is transphobic, it implies that trans women aren't real women. We are real women. We aren't men pretending to be women. This type of argument attempts to invalidate trans women and claim that we aren't real women. They claim to respect us as women but they don't think we should be in spaces with other women. If we're real women and they think we're real women how does that make any sense. Answer, it doesn't. This is an example of thinly veiled transphobia.
More examples of trying to justify thinly veiled transphobia. You know how we know it IS transphobic, because it is exclusionary towards actual women on the basis that we're transgender. Just because transphobia is normalized in some places doesn't make it not transphobia, also doesn't make it not wrong and exclusionary. Please don't try to excuse transphobia on the basis of the people being foreigners or the transphobia being mild and the people still self-proclaiming themselves to be trans allies.
It's not complicated, anything trans exclusionary or invalidating to trans identities is transphobic. "I don't hate trans people but I don't think they should force their identities and pronouns onto other people" is a transphobic dogwhistle and a prime example of thinly veiled transphobia, and it's the kind of thing you'd likely excuse here. I mean you literally excused excluding trans women from "women's spaces" despite us being women. That in and of itself is a dogwhistle, "protect women's spaces". I do think that Lemmy.blahaj.zone though should alert other admins including lemmy.world's admins o the problem though so they can ban these people everywhere, and not just from a single instance and its communities.
This is not a matter of justification or sympathy of transphobia. You can't condemn hundreds of millions of people (billions?) as evil just because they don't 100% align with your worldview. Especially if you know nothing about various countries' LGBT communities and their views and priorities.
How do you know your maximalist approach is shared by the global trans community? How many languages do you speak? Have you ever been part (IRL, not online) of another country's trans community? Living there and interacting with other people (trans and not trans).
Why are you saying that I believe that "[trans people] should [not] force their identities and pronouns onto other people?" Why are you putting words in my mouth? Is this because I provided a critique of your approach and offered a perspective from a non-english speaking country? I brought up the natal women's spaces example because it's a real world example that shows the limits of your approach. You don't know whether trans folk in non-english speaking countries are in 100% alignment with you on this issue.
I will admit I don't either. But unlike you I do have some exposure to our local LGBT community and to me this comes off as almost orientalist. You definitely have a lack of appreciation that people in other countries (trans or otherwise) may view things through a different lens and have their own strategies and priorities.
Terminally online people often get the feeling that everyone except a hateful minority agrees with them, when in reality they’re part of a secluded echo chamber.