What is protest part? Not sure it is malicious compliance either because contestant was not rebirthed as woman. Not that it’s possible unless you are buddhist.
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.
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.
It’s not about winning, it’s about sending a message. The message being that trans women shouldn’t have any problem competing with cis women if the judges feel that trans men will have a problem competing with cis women. I hope that make sense to read.
Elia Bonci, who also spoke to la Repubblica, said: “I took courage, used my deadname and signed up for Miss Italy because fighting transphobia is intersectional and even though I’m not a trans woman, I’ve decided to fight for their rights.”
I went to high school with a Ruth. She decided to change her name to Elizabeth when she went to college. She still goes by Elizabeth. Is she mentally ill because she doesn’t want anyone to call her Ruth?
So like, according to the organizers, if they were born with a penis, it doesn’t matter if they transitioned, they are considered men.
This trans man (a person born with a vagina who transitioned ) is entering the contest, because if trans women are considered men, trans men are considered women.
So this dude is entering a “female” beauty contest to show how dumb the rules are. He is allowed to do so because said dumb rules make him a woman in the eyes of the organization.
“Transphobia” idk I just think they don’t want certain ideologies in their shows. Makes sense to me but you guys will probably start spamming slurs at me if I keep speaking so…
Edit: I agree the rules are dumb and contradictory but calling it transphobia is just hilarious to me
Most uses of the misnomer “transphobia” are actually incorrect, because the people involved aren’t actually suffering from an irrational medical or psychological fear of transgender people.
What they actually are doing is more accurately called “transmisia”, because they are transmisic. This means they are heavily prejudiced against transgender women and believe that they shouldn’t be involved in the competitions.
Their reason for this are not because the transgender women don’t meet the beauty standards, or aren’t passing the judging categories, but because they just don’t want them there purely due to their trans-mysogynistic preconceptions.
In the vein of words like homophobia, these words’ definitions are not strictly in line with their etymology. Per every dictionary (but quoting Webster), transphobia is defined as:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against transgender people
And this might create some linguistic ambiguity, but I cannot seem to find actual documentation on a medical or psychological fear of transgender people at all. It seems this behavior is entirely (or almost entirely) a learned bigotry.
The other word, “transmisia”, has not really been officially adopted in any circle I can find. The only place I could find it with any prominance is a site called the “Trans Language Primer”, and I know nothing about it (except that it looks like geocities) so I won’t be linking it directly. Suffice to say, they speak negatively of the term (despite defending it as having a good intention) and favor “transphobia” for reasons of clarity.
Add comment