Ok sure. But it’s not really an effective protest as they’re fulfilling the requirement to enter the competition. Because the competition is steered by judges they will simply eliminate the trans men in the first round.
The rule is there to make sure the judges are not sexually aroused when they see a trans woman.
A greater means of protest would be if the non-trans competitors all quit the pageant. But their look is their only talent, so they won’t.
Also, echoing @Imotali’s comment below (unfortunately you can’t sticky comments on lemmy): comments that express hate towards any group are a violation of instance guidelines. BE NICE.
Has anyone ever seen a “woman from birth”? Like a whole-ass adult woman popping out of somebody not appreciably larger than her? Ready for a beauty pageant at zero minutes old?
Completely independent of gender, people should know that “women” are adults and have zero overlap with “children” or especially “newborn infants”.
Perhaps it should say “female from birth”. But anyone with basic reading comprehension would understand this. Probably you know this and are being unnecessarily pedantic/argumentative.
Double irony is they’d also send a takedown to github claiming the code contains their IP due to being too ignorant to comprehend that none of the code contains any of thiers to do what it does
I was a tech journalist in the early 00’s and I remember writing about that story or one like that.
A similar thing happened with Microsoft, who either delivered or was served the full documentation of some office format printed out. It’s a pretty popular form of malicious compliance, also paying people in bags of coins.
No, because trans men are “biologically women” and are thus specifically allowed by this approach. It’s the same kind of conflation that causes the bathroom issues. People only seem to understand that trans women exist and think they are the same as trans men. Reminding people that trans men exist hopefully gets peoples brains working.
Mod here. Just want to openly and unequivocally state… I will remove your comment if you’re transphobic. I will refer to trans people to let me know if you are being transphobic. I will ban you if you make an egregiously off colour comment. and I will take pleasure in doing this. Fuck your transphobic bullshit, go somewhere else. Nobody wants you here.
This is free speech. They get to say what they please. They are not free from the consequences of those words however. I, as a private citizen and not a governmental actor, can censor them.
This makes no sense in reply to my comment. Free speech is about the government, changing Lemmy instances won’t change the fact that Lemmy is not the government. My opinion, views, etc have nothing to do with this. As far as free speech is concerned a community would be free to remove trans positive comments if they so chose.
They can say what they want without restraint or restriction. They are not free from the consequences of their words.
They can say what they like. We can ban them if we don’t like it. That’s how free speech works in a consequentialist society (modern Western society is a synthesis of consequentialism and contractualism).
Friend, I appreciate your mod efforts, and I support 100% what you’re doing here.
Having said that, I think there is a misalignment in terms of free speech definitions.
What I think you’re saying is that people are free to express themselves, and the government (in the U.S., Italy, Argentina, wherever) will not censor you for that. However, a consequence of that is that you can ban them. Fair enough.
But people are not referring to the free speech in the country, region or whether. They’re specifically referring to the exercising of free speech in the community you are moderating. You’re saying that “there is free speech here,” then it follows that transphobic comments should be allowed (something I wouldn’t like because fuck transphobes.) But since you remove comments that don’t align with the community, then the community doesn’t have free speech - and that’s okay. I’m just referring to the contradiction: “you’re allowed to say what you want, but I will ban you if you say this or that” - welp, that just means that “this or that” is not allowed.
I think that’s what the other commenters are saying. They’re not criticizing you for removing comments. They’re calling out that removing comments (as a consequence of speech) and claiming that there is free speech, well no, technically it isn’t.
That’s literally not free speech. If I say I like to eat broccoli every day and that people should try it for health reasons and you’re some kind of carnivore mod and it tickles you the wrong way and you block me for it… That’s censorship and the opposite of free speech.
You’re telling me that you control the narrative. Now there’s nuance to censorship for sure, but you’re telling me that if you don’t like what I say I’m out. I have to type within the confines of the bubble of what isn’t too uncomfortable for you.
I say let the downvotes do the talking. If I go on the electric vehicles instance talking about how (non-ironocally) I love to roll coal and how that’s what’s keeping me from trying EVs, I expect to be downvoted into the shadow realm. And that’s ok. What I’m not ok with is a mod assuming that my voice sucks and that I don’t deserve to be heard. Maybe some smart lemmier(?) will point out some doodad that makes a brrr noise and shoots out some harmless mist or something.
You have the right to be an asshole. Mods have the right to ban you for being an asshole.
Making out that they’re nasty for having some standards of behaviour in their area is calling good bad and bad good.
(Censorship is when local or national government put you in prison for protesting or ban your book or ban your ideas. That’s when your free speech rights are being infringed.)
This is my job: to make perfectly clear what is and isn’t allowed. In no uncertain terms I will make sure this place is as free from transphobia as possible.
Just to play devils advocate, wouldn’t that mean it’s okay to criticize the idea of transgenderism if you don’t criticize the people who are transgender (although not really sure if that’s even possible)?
Yes. If you could prove transgenderism exists. See because you attach an -ism to it you are (in English) saying “the ideology of transgender individuals” which is “we exist” which is not an ideology. It is a fact. You can disagree with facts all you want but it doesn’t make you smart.or intellectual… it makes you wrong.
“The idea of being transgender” it’s not an idea anymore than you think about being cisgender. It’s a false dichotomy created by cisgender people who fail to understand the issue or fall victim to the “gay agenda” rhetoric of right wing media.
A better way to phrase it is no trans person thinks of themselves as trans. A trans woman thinks of herself as a woman. A trans man thinks of himself as a man. So there’s no “idea” of “being transgender” unless you’re a cis person who thinks they know what they’re talking about.
It’s like the phrase “differently abled” only able bodied people think like that.
That’s the thing about choosing an instance, it’s his house, his rules. At least with Lemmy it’s like you can move out to the next building, Reddit is like living in jail nowhere left to move.
maliciouscompliance
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.