First of all, I want to reiterate why I wasn't able to engage in this conversation earlier. I was attending a board meeting this weekend and did not want to begin a conversation I could not participate in. Comment moderation is a struggle at Feministing and I wanted to be present and able to do that moderation. This conversation, both about commenting and about gender variance and feminism is really important to me and all of us at Feministing. We are commited to continuing these conversations and finding the spaces for positive dialogue.
In the meantime, the discussion has continued on the community blog. I am really appreciative that members of the Feministing community are willing to engage in this conversation, and provide diverse perspectives.
Because of the difficulty of moderating all these conversations simultaneously, we're shutting down comments on the individual posts and redirecting everyone to comment on this thread where we can actively moderate.
I'm going to do a round-up of the community posts here:
Josh T. wrote about cisgender and transfeminists, what we have in common and why we should work together.
Kyriarchy wrote 5 tips on how to talk to trans people.
mindprovender wrote about Entitlement in comment threads.
Rachel Seltzer wrote a post called Play Nice or Get Out about gender, feminism and engagement.
Jessica94 wrote 5 Things I've Learned About Respectful and Productive Commenting with more thoughts on how to be a good commenter.
Zyfron wrote Thoughts on Trans Safe Space and Activism.
Obviously this is a conversation we are all invested in. We at Feministing want to find better ways to keep comment threads under control. We also want to promote dialogue and conversation about issues like gender and race, and other very heated, very personal issues that are central to feminism and feminist dialogue.
We absolutely recognize that our comment section is not always a safe space for a lot of people. We take this really seriously and it's a constant conversation for us. We have some time dedicated during our next Feministing in-person meeting in May to talk more and strategize about how to address this. In the next few weeks we're going to have a forum for feedback from all of you about this as well.
Our comment policy is here, and any comments that are offensive or in violation of that policy will be deleted.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gender discussions at Feministing.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13181
Well, as a general point, I just wanted to say how much Feministing has raised my blood pressure over the last few days. I'm a cis woman, but trans issues are very personal to me because my brother, who I love and respect, is a trans man. And while I'm used to hearing transphobic shit from random idiots on the street, hearing it from a community I had always thought of as "progressive" in my mind was shocking, disturbing, and incredibly disappointing.
When you say something transphobic, you insult ALL trans people, and you hurt the people who love them as well (yes, we exist!).
I do think Feministing has given the impression that it is a safe space for trans people, that it is trans friendly, and that it seeks to be involved in trans issues in a positive way. And it has fallen totally flat on that premise in the past week or so.
Zyfron is right: Feministing, and the feminist movement in general, needs to "pick a side and stick to it." Either you're involved in trans issues or you're not. And if you are, you need to do something POSITIVE about them, and not just absorb the movement, claim it, and then tell trans people to shut up and quit whining about their issues because the main goals of feminism haven't been achieved yet.
I sincerely hope things improve soon, and I want to stick around to help that happen as a trans ally.
excuse my ignorance, but what is CIS? and I'm sorry to hear that there are Transphobic attacks here on Feministing, that's sad.
That refers to cisgender. If you read some of the community posts, they explain what the term means.
I'm very interested in the standard use of these terms. Why is trans gender appropriately split into two words but cisgender one word (though both cisgender and cis gender appear in these comments)?
"Transgender" shouldn't be split into two words (not sure where it was). "Trans", as a word on its own, is basically an abbreviation for transgender/transsexual, and "cis" for cisgender/cissexual. Trans and cis should be used as adjectives when referring to people (just as transgender/cisgender should be). So it's trans woman, not transwoman, because they are a woman who's trans. Same for cis man, etc.
Thanks for the clarification. I second your explanation.
I'm sorry; I was unclear. I was asking about the very interesting community post that Miriam referred to in her own round-up here: http://community.feministing.com/2009/04/5-tips-on-how-to-talk-to-trans.html. Kyriarchy writes that it is appropriate to write "trans man" rather than "transman", I assume because trans is not necessarily a modifier of man, and that making it so would in fact not reflect how some trans men think about their gender identity; the "trans" part being in fact independent of maleness or femaleness. But as someone interested in both language and gender ID, I am curious to hear more on this and what the issues involved are.
The problem with writing "transman" is that it carries the implication that they aren't really men (we don't, say, call men who are white "whitemen"). Trans men are men who are trans (along with a myriad of other things), and writing it as "trans man", where "trans" is an adjective modifying "man", helps reflect that.
cis- is a prefix that basically means "on the same side as" and is basically the opposite of trans-. Here its short for cisgender or cissexual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
If you're cisgendered then your gender identity matches your physical sex (which determines the gender you were assigned at birth).
If you mention a tran woman's sex (usually male, I think), you are banned from posting on feministing, so how do we discuss these issues?
It's one thing to discuss "physical sex" (which is sort of tricky anyway because of the many, many variations in human physical sex characteristics). It's entirely another thing to misgender someone, or to call a trans woman "a man who is gendered as a woman."
Trans women are WOMEN. Trans men are MEN. They just happened to be born in a position where society viewed or views them as something other than what they are.
In most cases, it's probably sufficient to say that trans people are trans people and leave it at that. You don't have to discuss "before" in gory detail.
Again I'm being misquoted and slandered on feminisiting but I have no right to complain because I'm only a stupid "cis" woman. I used the word "male" not "man" in that quote. "Male" is the biological term as far as I know: DNA and all that. (Because my post was deleted I can't prove that I didn't say anything offensive.) This is so unfair.
I grew up loving math and being told I don't act like a girl because I was too assertive. Here I'm called a ciswoman. I refused to accept THAT label. I don't want to conform to feminine gender roles. But I have no right to complain because I'm not part of a group the feministing moderators want to "protect."
Does anyone see my point of view? It seems that everyone agrees with everyone else except me. I'm the lone outcast, no?
You referred to a trans woman as being "a male," which is a.) wrong and b.) offensive to the extreme. Also, even if a trans woman is genetically male, it's irrelevant and there is absolutely no reason to keep bringing it up in conversation.
There's a big huge difference between being gender-non-conforming and being transgendered. Trust me. I consider myself to be VERY gender-non-conforming! But at the end of the day, when I examine my gender critically, I feel like a woman, my gender and my body don't have any dissonance, and so, because of that match, I am a cis woman. I don't like what society expects of women, and I rebel against that, but that's a *totally different issue.*
"Cis" is not a slur. Literally, it means "on the same side." This means that your body and gender are "on the same side."
Maybe you are not a cis woman, maybe you are something else entirely. That's something only you can figure out. However, that does NOT give you any sort of right to go around calling trans women "male" or vice versa.
1) Being cisgender doesn't necessarily mean you conform completely to gender stereotypes! It just means that you happen to identity with the same gender that you were assigned at birth. It's estimated that 98% of the population is cisgender, but i've never met ANYONE who perfectly conformed to societies gender roles!!
As far as i remember of your comment, no one attempted to define your gender for you. It very well be that you are genderqueer or transgender in some way. In those cases, yes, cisgender might not actually apply to you specifically.
2) "Male" is not exclusively a biological term. Calling someone "a male" does not imply they happen to have stereotypical male physiology (and i'm not even sure what that would mean!!) it implies they are a man. I believe that is just the nature of English at this time.
3) If you do just happen to be cisgender: I'm not sure privilidged groups of people get to "reject" the terms that those they are priviledge over use to describe them. At least not if you are coming from a perspective that the oppression is not okay and should be worked against.
Also, I want to be very clear about this for everyone:
CISGENDER IS NOT AN INSULT!!
There's no disrespect implied, its not used with venom. It really, literally just means you are not trans! Cis and trans are both perfectly fine things to be in the world.
I think there's some legitimate confusion as to what being "cisgendered" actually amounts to, though, which might be worth talking about. What does it really mean to say that one's biological sex is in alignment with "gender"? Are the only options really that binary -- in alignment or not in alignment, cis or trans? I think a lot of ostensibly cisgendered people nonetheless feel some amount of perhaps confusing discomfort surrounding their gender identity and/or what society normalizes for that gender (I know I do), and so thinking of the options as only "alignment" vs. "non-alignment" can be really dissatisfying.
Of course, I agree that this kind of discomfort must not be the same kind of discomfort that a trans person feels, but I don't think we need to slide into oppression olympics type stuff here. Maybe instead we can just agree that, for most issues involving the labeling of gender and/or sexuality, a strict dichotomy is pretty much always dissatisfying to everyone...
Oh, hell yeah! There are blurry edges between cis and trans, and that blurry edge is home to many people!
To which i'd add that transgender itself is a fairly wide-reaching and ambiguous term in a lot of ways. I'd agree that sometimes the fuzziness of both of these terms can cause some confusion. Unfortunately that just seems to be the reality of the situation: gender categories are just kinda fuzzy, diverse, complex, multifaceted things. Ironically, the blurry edges seem to be part of the accuracy :-)
Yes, exactly. So first this indicates that we need to broaden the discussion to include "genderqueer" as a category.
Second, I often think that most cis people don't fit all that neatly either (I certainly don't) which led to this post.
Genderqueer people are often included under the trans(gender) umbrella. But you're right that there hasn't been much addressing people who don't identify as male or female.
I've said this before, but I don't mind saying it again.
I love math. I like T-shirts and cargo pants, currently I'm in college studying to become a computer scientist - and, economy and random bigotry willing, I will spend my career as a software engineer. All of these things are traditionally very "male."
I am a transwoman. It's not because I just wanted all the frilly dresses and traditional women's roles. It's something much, much deeper than that. Being a woman is not incompatible with math, or any other traditionally "male" activity. Having a male body is not incompatible with these things, either. And both together is STILL NOT INCOMPATIBLE with these things. Just thought everyone should know.
As a cisgendered female who is good at math (to the total amazement of teachers and peers, bleh) -- word :)
As a cisgendered woman who's studying to become an academic mathematician and is not planning to ever have a family or children and generally does not fit very well into a female gender role, who *also* has a very strong internal sense of her gender identity as being female, word.
I don't think you're getting the distinction between sex and gender. The offensive behavior I've seen here regarding this is when commenters insist on referring to a trans woman as "he" and a tran man as "she." That is deeply offensive.
If you're talking purely about their sex (genitalia, chromosomes, etc.) then that might be different, depending on the context. But why is biological sex always thought to be so deeply relevant? Generally it's just brought up as another way of poo-pooing the person's very real experience with gender and reducing it all to biology once again. And this is inherently a feminist issue. How is reducing it all to biology for trans folk any different than the way many misogynists reduce the experiences of women to biology? If we're pissed off about this, why wouldn't we object to the reduction of the experiences of tran people to biology?
This isn't a completely open forum. We do moderate our comments, and reserve the right to moderate how we see fit.
Lucinda had been reported on a number of occasions and posts, so you're being banned.
It should have taken effect already, so apologies to everyone for the technical issue.
Thank you for taking the action of banning people and making the space open for a more productive and more safe space. As a usually quiet observer, I really appreciate you saving me the anxiety, rage, and inevitable headache brought on by those sorts of comments. Sometimes these offensive commenters should take a step back and just read and try to learn about someone else's experience for a while.
Lucinda, the issue had nothing to do with referring to a trans woman's original biological sex; it was about referring to her as male, which comes across as ignorant, rude, condescending, and alienating.
Also, not to be snide, but you certainly don't sound banned.
Well, to be fair "Physical sex" is (1) pretty subjective and (2) capable of change over one's life. Usually the key issue is the gender one was assigned at or near birth. For instance, it is actually a fairly common opinion (of many trans people, legal officials, many mainstream americans, etc) that post-operative transsexuals have a physical sex that corresponds with their gender identity. Only a small number of those folks consider themselves cisgender and cissexual however.
I raise this in part because i keep seeing "biological sex" and "physical sex" being tossed around as if it had some concrete agreed upon meaning when in fact it does not. Understanding this is actually important to understanding some of the discrimination trans people face (and intersex people as well).
Agreed. I should have said "biological sex at birth."
Heh, yeah, that would've taken care of the changing aspect of it, but maybe not so much the subjective aspect of it. For instance, a fairly large number of folks' "biological sex at birth" is not clear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex Some folks with this experience end up being cisgender and others transgender. One thing just about *everyone* in the U.S. has though is the experience of having a gender assigned to them around the time of their birth.
Again, it only seems mentioning because the fact that our society really demands everyone be assigned a (nearly) immutable gender classification almost as soon as we enter this world seems significant in understanding why anti-trans policies and attitudes continue to take such strong hold in our society, even as general attitudes towards transgender folks becomes friendlier. There are much deeper misunderstandings of the human condition at play that are hurting us -- and i mean ALL of us, cis and trans.
(i am at work or else i'd elaborate more. I appologize if this is vague!!)
Yeah, I'm totally familar with intersex issues and that's why I said in a comment elsewhere in this thread that sex isn't socially constructed to the extent that gender is. Because I really believe that the way we have to force everyone into two groups and mutilate those with ambiguous genitalia for the purposes of our sexual binary is ridiculous and based on the cultural idea that there are only two sexes. And then we refer to this binary as "natural," which seems tragically ironic given all the work we do to enforce the binary. So perhaps the problem here is that I gave a "quick and dirty" response, and should have linked to a Feminism 101 or Gender 101 post instead.
Since "biological sex" at birth can be ambiguous, the term I have heard most often to refer to this is "gender assigned at birth". This term is important because it shows that other people assign us our gender at birth when it can sometimes be ambiguous and not clearly defined. Gender assignment is something done to us, and that gender assignment is not necessarily within us.
So instead of saying things like the "biological sex" "sex at birth" etc. the term "the gender they were assigned at birth" is more clear. I would definitely recommend Julia Serano's book Whipping Girl to anyone who is interested in learning more about trans women theory and activism; it's especially a good 101 on all of the terminology issues, what they mean, how seemingly innocuous phrases (to privileged cisgendered individuals) can carry deeply offensive implications.
Thank you for explaining this!
You're right, and I thought my original comment had included the "assignment" aspect of gender.
Is it possible to delete some of these "what is cis?" answers, because, honestly, it was already addressed in one of the posts that you linked to, and it _very_ frustrating to come to the comments hoping for discussion about how to move forward and be forced to scroll through screen after screen of "cis v. trans is _____" I almost closed the window and left because I was too frustrated by "what is cis?" taking over yet another thread.
I hear you ebsith.
People, I think the question and definition of cis has been sufficiently explained on this thread and in the original links.
Let's not keep hashing it out.
For some clarification on transmisogyny and a bit of reading on trans issues, here is an article from the blog No Designation by Tobi Hill-Meyer:
http://nodesignation.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/what-transmisogyny-looks-like/
Here are a couple good quotes:
"When trans women desperately in need of sexual assault or domestic violence services are turned away because their needs are considered less important than the hypothetical discomfort their presence might cause for others, that’s transmisogyny."
"When trans women who present femininely or assert a binary identity are blamed for perpetuating binary gender roles, while it’s forgotten that many or even more cis women do the same, that’s transmisogyny. (When cis women who present femininely are also blamed for perpetuating binary gender roles, that’s femmephobia)"
Here was my response to Zyfron's post, but I think it sort of addresses all of them:
To me it's a no-brainer that trans issues are feminist issues. But to me, feminism is a stance rather than an ideology, and that stance involves critiquing our culture, pointing out instances of norming and othering, working for social justice, working to be inclusive and a good listener and ally, etc. So I'm usually kind of taken aback by feminists whose words and actions don't seem to share these values.
The thing is, I think I'm going to work to temper my WTF?!? reaction, because I'm starting to see that these responses are often informed more by a lack of exposure to the issues and a bit of insensitivity than by truly anti-trans attitudes. And I think my wtf reaction does reflect privilege, in the sense that it's basically my job to study this stuff, think about it, read about it, teach it, etc. So I'm steeped in it, and the concepts and terminology seem totally straighforward and like common knowledge to me. But that isn't the situation that all participants in these discussions are coming from. It's still a big problem, but I think it indicates that we need to do more of the Feminist 101 type work, as tedious as that can be at times. And for those commenters who still insist on making it about them, or misinterpreting the issues ("I don't want teh menz in my pottyroom!!!"), I'm done wasting my energy, after a few initial responses. It just doesn't seem possible to make much headway in these kinds of discussions.
So to finally answer your questions, YES, trans issues are feminist issues, for both MTF and FTM trans people. And the fact that feminist spaces often turn out not to be safe spaces for trans folk is an issue that we all need to address. Being compassionate and inclusive are absolutely necessary to the integrity of feminism. Without it, we're no different from our historical oppressors.
I had missed your original, so thank you for reposting.
I could not even begin to agree with more with your sentiment. Trans issues ARE feminist issues and we all need to work on making this and other feminist spaces trans friendly.
Thank you again!
i think you have a heavy-handed comment moderation style that is inconsistent and arbitrarily applied.
shutting down comments at other people's community blogs, to force ppl to comment here...is presumptious and steps on other bloggers spaces (even if it is hosted on your community site -- it's like your landlord restricting guest's access to your apartment, they're having conversations, not wild, destructive parties)
it's especially weird since folks blogging on other topics haven't had their comments shut down.
this, combined with shutting down comments on the friday blog entry, sseem to be more about controlling dialogue rather than just moderating out incendiary remarks or attempts to derail.
why do you have this need to box your commenters into a particular time/place/date/space before you're willing to even listen to them. why this need to exert control over the shape of the conversation now? when you can't be bothered to just evict rude commentors in the first place?
i would not be surprised if your comment space here remains empty. the interwebs is a vast, wide space. no one is forced to have this conversation here, at your convience, and on your terms.
I agree.
I agree. I'd rather comment on all of those threads than on this one. I believe this is an attempt to silence an important discussion in order to curb descent and cover the asses of the Feministng contributors. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There is almost no room for disagreement on this site. If you want to be heard, bow down to the OP. That's become rule number one.
Well let me know when you start writing your own blog. I will be sure to participate in your comment section.
I do have my own blog, but I've chosen not to link to it here. Comment moderation hasn't been a huge issue for me, because 1) I don't get that many comments. I have a few regulars who comment sometimes, and 2) I disabled Anonymous comments. When I shared a blog with another person, we had comment moderation, because someone was cyber-stalking my blog partner. We got some anti-feminist comments, but we still posted them. I remember not posting one comment because it was spam (I think it had something to do with car stereos). So my comment policy has always been say whatever you want. If I don't agree with it, I'll tell you why. If you use offensive language, I will point and laugh at you.
Whether we like it or not, the dialogue about trans issues on Feministing has again made clear that the editors of this blog ARE responsible for the discussion that occurs in the comments sections. We are ultimately responsible for the space at Feministing (which definitely includes not just posts, but comments as well), and responsible for making it productive and non-hostile. The simple fact is that all opinions and ideas are *NOT* equally welcome on Feministing.
In cases like this, when we know the subject matter is sensitive and emotions are running high, we like to be able to pay especially close attention to the dialogue in comments. But with six separate community posts, with six separate ongoing threaded conversations in comments, we could see how that type of close moderation would quickly become impossible. The unfortunate fact is we just don't have the capacity to moderate every thread as heavily as we'd like. Hence, this is a compromise. A way to create a space to discuss the issues raised in all of these related community posts in such a way that we are actually able to engage in and monitor it.
As you point out, this is not the only venue for conversation, and if folks don't like the way we've chosen to direct the conversation here, they are obviously more than welcome to have it elsewhere. This is, indeed, what the internet is for.
I just wanted to thank you guys for having the nerve to say something like this. I know saying something like "Well, this is NOT actually an open forum" is generally a pretty unpopular thing to say.
i think you have a heavy-handed comment moderation style that is inconsistent and arbitrarily applied.
shutting down comments at other people's community blogs, to force ppl to comment here...is presumptious and steps on other bloggers spaces (even if it is hosted on your community site -- it's like your landlord restricting guest's access to your apartment, they're having conversations, not wild, destructive parties)
it's especially weird since folks blogging on other topics haven't had their comments shut down.
this, combined with shutting down comments on the friday blog entry, sseem to be more about controlling dialogue rather than just moderating out incendiary remarks or attempts to derail.
why do you have this need to box your commenters into a particular time/place/date/space before you're willing to even listen to them. why this need to exert control over the shape of the conversation now? when you can't be bothered to just evict rude commentors in the first place?
i would not be surprised if your comment space here remains empty. the interwebs is a vast, wide space. no one is forced to have this conversation here, at your convience, and on your terms.
I hear what you are saying.
But this is our problem:
We are also held accountable and made responsible for the comment discussions that go down here.
We're trying to balance between letting dialogue happen and not letting things get out of control on our blog.
The reason we pulled these threads together is because they are all parts of one conversation that sprung up here this past week.
The reality is we are only 6 people, all of whom have other jobs because this blog does not fund our work.
We can't moderate physically moderate 7 threads at once.
I realize that no solution is going to please everyone, but I'm at least trying to be real and transparent about what we're doing.
I know y'all refactored your site not too long ago, but are there any other refactors slated in the future? This sounds like a case of technology working against you instead of for you! In most commenting engines i've seen it is the number of comments, not the number of threads, that drives the difficulty of moderation. Just seems worth mentioning, like, "It doesn't need to be this way!" :-)
I've seen sites with self-moderation by way of a "report post" or "report comment" function. The reported posts and comments get sent to the moderators, who can then delete the posts and comments that are reported a lot. I don't know what it takes to get that technology, but it might work well here and take some of the burden for moderating comments off of the Feministing editors.
We have this function--it's the Report Abuse button below the comment.
Unfortunately when things get out of control it isn't enough.
We're going to be revisiting our comment policy, so things might change in the near future.
Maybe I'm the only person, but even tho I saw the "Report abuse" link, I wasn't sure exactly what situations it was for. I wasn't sure whether it was for some specific thing, or all things that violate the comments policy.
Also, the comments policy doesn't mention using it to report comments, which should probably be changed.
Same here. I don't want to belittle verbal or cyber abuse by reporting a comment that I see as simply offensive and labeling it as abuse.
I've never seen anything I've reported as abuse responded to at all. It looks to me (and it's probably not true, but this is how it looks) that you don't consider certain types of language to be abusive, which other people do. When you're clarifying your comment policy, will you consider also clarifying what you consider abusive, and what process folks who report abusive language should expect?
Yes, we'll take this into consideration. It's not a perfect system, by any means.
Maybe it would be worth reinstating the "dislike" option so that we can bury comments if necessary? I mean, that would be a really messy bandaid since there's a huge potential for abuse, and maybe legitimate comments that people just don't like get buried, but it's an idea.
(Also, to keep the "positive" vibe of focusing on the likes rather than the dislikes, you could possibly make it so that the comment receives some positive or negative rating based on the combined likes & dislikes, so that people with 50 likes aren't having their parades rained on by seeing 5 dislikes, or something).
I've said some pretty unpopular things in the past (see the thread about Facebook's breast feeding picture policy). I had expressed my opinion and followed up, but I feel with a "dislike" function, my comments would be buried simply because my opinion on the matter is unpopular, not necessarily because my arguments were abusive/unfounded/inherently wrong in logical nature.
That's sort of like how the YouTube comments policy is like. But the YouTube policy is imperfect, since if your comment is given 10 "thumbs downs," nobody can look at them. I think it might be better if Feministing brought back the "dislike" function and hid comments that are disliked too much, but people can still look at them if they want.
But then all the dissenting comments would be hidden. That would suck. A lot.
You said below you don't like the moderation even. Giving commenters the ability to make dissenting comments not show up unless you activate them seems even worse. If something like that was currently in existence, then all of your comments on the '5 tips' thread would be hidden. Shit, mine would be too. Probably ALL the comments on the '5 tips' thread would be hidden.
I don't mean they'd be hidden forever, like they are on YouTube. They'd be hidden if they get too many dislikes, but you'd be able to click on it to make the comment appear (like it is for YouTube comments with a rating better than -10). That would keep people from seeing comments that might be triggering. If you don't want to read the hidden comments, you don't click on them. Click at your own risk.
I second this suggestion!
"Maybe it would be worth reinstating the "dislike" option so that we can bury comments if necessary?"
PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. I hated that function so much. It was part of the reason I deleted my account at Feministing at one point. Yes, I signed up for a new one, and I probably won't delete it again, but PLEASE DON'T DO THIS.
Hey, just out of curiosity, what about it do you hate so much? I only propose it because it seems like it's a possible option for a way to make the comments section here more effectively self-moderating, thus relieving some of the burden that the moderators are under. If there's an unacceptable drawback though, I'd like to know about it.
This is based entirely on my own feelings and reactions to the dislike button.
First, it is just a given that even if someone says something in good faith, are not trolling, are not saying something offensive or disrespectful, and are just adding to the discussion, people are going to disagree and push dislike. I don't see it as a function that people use to indicate trollish comments, but as a way to express agreement or disagreement with an otherwise valid comment.
And discussions on Feministing already get heated and can be very personal to people, so it is hard enough not to get defensive. But when you say something you thought was a valid point and you come back later and see you have a -20 rating just because you expressed a minority viewpoint, well, you either get defensive, pissed, or insulted. I really felt that discussions on Feministing got a lot angrier with the creation of the dislike button. (It is also possible discussions at Feministing got angrier because it was close to November 4th...)
I just don't want Feministing to punish people who are in the minority on a viewpoint. And I don't think there is a way to get people to only use the dislike button to indicate that a post is disrespectful, offensive, or trollish. And even then, it'll just be used to police someone's tone.
That was all ramblings. But I had about 11 hours of class today, so my brain is kinda done.
Haha, understood re: brain being done. But yes, I do see what you're saying, and would like to come up with some way to get around it... maybe have a "like" button, and then as a completely different thing, a "flag" button, or something? Something to indicate that people should push it if they think the comment is actually inappropriate in some way, rather than just something they dislike...
i just think that the individual writer should be accountable for moderating their posts.
why arent individuals who wrote posts on their own blogs responsible for moderating their blog comments? just as you are responsible for moderating comments on your personal blog or posts written at Feministing?
i have never seen admin from Blogspot or Myspace come in to shut down or moderate the comments on my page.
are the community bloggers here at risk of having their comments shut off by you if they blog about a topic on your blacklist [hotlist]? like trans issues?
who is going through the community posts and shutting down comments on particular entries? why not spend that time moderating your own threads?
How you can compare this site to MySpace or Blogspot is beyond me.
I completely agree with the compiling of this conversation to one space. Feministing editors ARE responsible to keep the comment spaces as safe as possible, and as we have heard, lately the comment space on this blog HAS NOT BEEN SAFE for transgendered people. The move to more closely moderate comments is a responsible move by the editors at Feministing to make this space more safe for a group of people already marginalized in society.
What leaves me feeling uncomfortable about this response is that there seemed to be no problem moderating comments at Professor Foxy's thread this weekend. I noticed when I checked there that a lot of comments were being moderated for rape apologia and the like. When the administrators can manage to properly moderate a thread that's about rape, but cannot seem to properly moderate any thread about trans issues, it looks like there's a problem beyond "we all work".
I know you're all busy. I understand that. But there's a difference in how those threads were moderated, and it reads like you care more about one issue than the other.
I think the "real" explanation is probably something like: The author of the Prof Foxy post had more time & energy (& patience...) to moderate comments there than other people happened to have for their own posts. BUT, how the site "reads" is absolutely relevant and important, for exactly the reason you stated, so the main contributors here should really take note of that, even given whatever practical concerns there are going on behind the scenes.
I have to contest the idea that the Prof Foxy post was well moderated. Shit still got out of control and I ended up shutting off comments today.
This is a universal problem for us, harder on some topics than others, but nonetheless hard.
I said this somewhere below, but I might as well put it here too -- I haven't seen the prof foxy post (I saw the comments # ballooning and figured I'd be better off keeping out of it at this point...) but from the descriptions I've heard, I can't help but wonder if there has actually been an influx of straight up trolling as a result of linkage on other sites (particularly as the apparently controversial FFFY to Seth Rogan re: date rape in his recent movie made the rounds on other blogs). I have no idea what one would, you know, do about that, but it might be worth knowing anyway...
Lots of people thought that the commenting/moderating on Prof. Foxy's post was very problematic, and I really think it's quite pressing for Feministing (either the mods or the community) to have a discussion about the specific commenting issues raised by Prof. Foxy's posts, since they can have much more personal consequences than an ordinary Feministing post. The questioner herself commented saying how distressed she'd been by the kind of commenting on that post, and to me a "safe space" on Prof. Foxy's posts means something different to the more general safe space policies on Feministing.
Have the mods had any thoughts about this stuff?
I agree. If the post is about a specific person who will be reading the threads, maybe there should be an almost complete moderation thing where all comments go into moderation to be checked before being posted? That would be a huge hassle, but it would only come up every once in a while when the question asked is extremely personal and contentious. I don't think people would be too angry if once a month there was ONE thread that had such a strict commenting policy.
I'll reiterate what I said in Zyfron's post: there is a place for discussion of trans issues in feminist discussion, inasmuch as feminists discuss issues of race and class, as long as that discussion is respectful. People who participate should participate because they have something to give, whether it's a thoughtful question or a point they feel strongly about. Keeping in mind, of course, that we should try to stay on topic because the point of this blog is topical discussion.
I want to comment on Jessica94's post about "5 Things I've Learned About Respectful and Productive Commenting". Rereading the comment policy that Miriam linked to in this post, made me think again about some of the behaviors that make me so uncomfortable while reading comments here.
All of the subjects that we talk about on Feministing are personal to someone reading. It may be about their lives, their work, their passions, etc. and people get defensive (and rightfully so). But there are people out there that disagree. They may be misogynistic, they may be a troll, or they just may disagree. And sometimes their disagreement may come across as rude, heartless, or attacking your views or self. When I read one of these comments, I feel a strong reaction and become upset. But I feel even more upset when one lone mean comment by one lone mean commenter takes over the entire comment section. People call each other "assholes", "idiotic", "dumb as a post", "stupid", and "uneducated" - and those are some of the tamer comments. Then it seems like as the verbal fights ensue, and the point of the post gets lost.
I just wonder if it's worth responding to someone who is clearly engaging to cause problems and upset individuals. If they don't want to comment in a productive way, why not just ignore their post and move on? I think it would be a much more pleasant experience for all of us.
I just wonder if it's worth responding to someone who is clearly engaging to cause problems and upset individuals. If they don't want to comment in a productive way, why not just ignore their post and move on? I think it would be a much more pleasant experience for all of us.
I've been really struggling with this one, because on the one hand what you say is absolutely right. In the last several posts about trans issues, I've seen one or two uninformed commenters basically take over the entire post because of this. On the other hand, if no one calls them out, what kind of message does this send? That we all agree with the comment? And what if trans people who are personally offended by the comment respond? I feel really uncomfortable sitting back quietly in my cis privilege and watching the trans commenters defend their lives and identities - how is that going to do anything to make things better? How is that anything but showing trans people that they're completely right, Feministing *isn't* a safe space for them? But is participating in the derail going to make things better?
The past few days I've been operating under the policy of leaving one comment on those threads to make clear I strongly dissent but not engaging further, and commenting further down on the non-derailing part as well as well as trying to participate in any non-derailing discussions if I feel I have anything non-clueless to say (which is rarely). This is far from a perfect solution, and I'd be very interested in what other people think about this issue.
You're right, it's hard to find the balance between not letting people get away with making inflammatory comments and making whole discussion about them. I try to just comment once, but sometimes the reactions just get worse and worse and it's hard to refrain from commenting more.
i'm more of a reader on here and less of a poster, so my suggestion might not be all that practical, but i do think about this a lot when i read through heated threads. my instinct would be to take an approach kind of similar to what i would do during a facilitated discussion where one person is (knowingly or unknowingly) saying really problematic stuff. that would be to try to talk to them one-on-one so they don't feel embarrassed/defensive/attacked. i don't know if feministing has a way to send personal messages but it seems to me like it could be helpful all around (for the poster, who probably has decent intentions; for the rest of the readers of the thread, who probably don't want to get sidetracked--etc) to leave a post that says something like, "can i/i'm going to email/pm/leave a message on your blog so we can talk about this one on one rather than over this thread." that way other folks reading would know that stuff wasn't sliding, but the whole thread wouldn't have to get derailed.
i dunno--just an idea.
Also, I wanted to say two things regarding Play Nice or Get Out, which I mostly agreed with.
First, I don't think it's an issue of playing nice. I think it's actually an issue of approaching the discussion with a desire to promote constructive dialogue, and making a good-faith effort to make your comments sensitive and constructive. People who want to be hurtful and nasty have their own online spaces, but feminist spaces shouldn't be that way. But that doesn't mean we always have to be "nice," just sensitive to others and constructive.
Second, I think discussions of trans, genderqueer, and intersex issues would be greatly improved if we moved past the conception of gender as some sort of genetically determined thing. Sex has to do with biology (although it is also socially constructed in some ways), but gender is purely social. Gender is assigned to you based on your genitalia (and sometimes other biological markers), and it is socially constructed as this thing that allegedly arises out of biology, so they're linked in that way, but gender is neither genetic nor biological.
Another example that illustrates how gender is socially constructed is the presence of other genders (than just man and woman) in non-Western societies, such as the hijra in South Asia, and the various two-spirit identities among many Native American cultures.
Exactly. And the Balkan sworn virgin is another interesting example.
Thank you for this. It's the best explanation of the distinction between sex and gender that I've read, and answers some questions I had.
You're right, (as are others) "genetic gender" was the wrong term to use. I apologize. Carry on.
I just want to apologize for my post. I should not have posted it and I'm sorry for hurting or offending anyone. I understand what people are saying about safe places and I just need to listen. There doesn't seem to be a way for me to delete it so maybe the moderators could help with this
Thank you to the editors for working so hard to manage this discussion. I'm realizing Feministing isn't ready to go beyond Trans 101 yet, which means some hard work to do.
The following is a response to a comment CS left on my original post:
CS, your comment was very hard to read because it pathologizes my very identity. But I believe you genuinely want to learn, so I am going to try to answer.
Everything, absolutely everything we know and experience is a result of interaction with our world. All our understandings of what is are socially constructed, meaning agreements we come to between each other.
The Enlightenment drive to understand the world through ordering, categorizing, organizing led to the privileging of science as a way of accessing "truth." To understand people, to fit them into clearly delimited boxes, we usually resort to biology. So we act like biology has some monopoly on what is true, real, accurate, when really it is one of many tools used in attempts to understand our world.
(There are more than two currently recognized biological genders. I am no scientific expert though, so I feel really unqualified to talk about this. And I barely care what biology has to say about my gender. I know myself a lot better than any scientist could ever know me.)
The way people are grouped into the categories male or female has nothing to do with a complex scientific process. Baby comes out, doctor looks at their crotch and says "it's a boy" or "it's a girl." If the doctor is confused the baby may be identified as intersex, which is pathologized because we want everyone to fit into the boy or girl category.
We see or interact with only a very small percentage of people's genitalia in our lives. Yet we gender everyone we interact with every day. This gendering is a social phenomenon. Biology is one way we legitimize it, but it is rarely the route to gendering. We look at clothes, hair, makeup, piercings, posture, visible physical shape, vocal inflection, even word choice, sentence structure, and ideas expressed on the internet, etc - a whole host of cues that suggest gender to us. Which one is right, which one is legitimate? Which one has a monopoly on truth? I am convinced none of them do. Gender is a very complicated way of categorizing that we have barely scratched the surface of understanding.
You don't know what it's like to be trans. I don't know what it's like to know I am a man or to know I am a woman. I have never understood this knowledge. It is completely outside my experience.
You think this means there is something wrong with me. You think my desire to live in the world as I experience myself is wrong. I don't understand why.
I have a pretty simple standard when it comes to this sort of thing. Does it make it easier to get out of bed in the morning? If identifying as trans, if presenting my gender to the world as a reflection of how I experience my gender makes my life easier to live and doesn't hurt me or others then I think it's a good thing to do.
Trying to force me into either the male or female box does hurt me. Letting me be myself makes my life so much easier. Trust me, you can't cure transness.
I am much happier with myself as a person since coming out. I am nicer to myself, I am a better friend. My life and the lives of those I interact with are improved because I live in this world as I want to. What's wrong with this?
Oh, and this is not about my sexuality. Sexuality is about who and how I want to fuck. Gender is about who I am.
Great explanation of a lot of complicated things. Here's what's currently really interesting to me about this topic:
You don't know what it's like to be trans. I don't know what it's like to know I am a man or to know I am a woman. I have never understood this knowledge. It is completely outside my experience.
I think a lot of cis people also don't necessarily "feel like a woman" or "feel like a man," but if you've learned to sort of "pass" as the gender that was assigned to you, you're lucky enough that it's not an issue for you, and you easily slip into the norm. And I think a lot of people have simply been socialized as a boy or a girl so well that they do experience this "feeling like a man/woman" thing. But that doesn't mean there is some sort of biological source or drive that makes you "feel like a woman." And when you add in the fact that life is much easier for cis folk, then it makes sense that most of us would simply "pass" as the gender we were assigned to. But I think it would be beneficial for everyone to continue driving the wedge between the biological and the social in order to make gender a more fluid and flexible thing, the performance of which the individual can engage in (or not) as desired.
I may or may not have explained this more clearly on this post.
I'll just say, the amount of discomfort felt by transgender people about their gender generally cannot be compared. It's a constant, insistent feeling that something is not right. If you don't feel this, you probably wouldn't understand, and so comparing it to a general discomfort with societal gender roles might seem reasonable. But it is a completely different and more intense feeling.
Sure, that wasn't my intention. I don't think that the experiences of cis and trans people are the same at all, and I'm sorry if my comment gave you that impression.
My point is just that this idea we have that performing your assigned gender "comes naturally" for some people but not for others is harmful for everyone. And everyone would benefit by loosening this alleged connection between biological sex and gender. This is one way in which cisgendered feminists and trans folk are natural allies, beyond our shared committment to social justice.
Ok, I see what you're saying and I agree with that. How much of "boys play with trucks and like blue and girls play with dolls and like pink" is learned performance is probably pretty high.
I'm sure some of the problem is trolls derailing comment threads, which happened in several of those posts, but I don't think that's all of it. Admittedly, this is from something of an outsider perspective, but I think that there really are some major, fundamental disagreements between trans*-activist thought and a significant part of feminist thought. Let me see if I can sum up my impressions of those differences from what I've observed.
First is the whole "gender is constructed" vs. "gender is innate" thing. If gender is entirely a social construct (as some feminists, although not all, believe) than it's not a large leap of logic to conclude that trans*-people are in a sense deluded; that they've bought into an illusion so heavily that they're willing to "mutilate" themselves to enforce the reality of that illusion on their bodies. I read a good discussion of this at http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/transphobic-tropes-3-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Creifying-gender%E2%80%9D/
http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/transphobic-tropes-4-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Cmy-theories-are-more-important-than-your-experience%E2%80%9D/
which I think does a better job of explaining why many trans*-people don't like this viewpoint. I'm sure I oversimplified the feminist thought a little bit, but I don't think I misrepresented it.
The second area, which is probably more touchy since it's less theory and more practice, is female-only safe spaces. A lot of feminists like them. DV shelters, and as that mess of a thread demonstrated, gendered bathrooms, are two examples. Trans*-people don't like being banned from female-only spaces because they're not "female enough" or "really female" or they didn't have the "shared girlhood" or whatever. But there's also the pervasive "if you can look like a man and have a man's body but identify as a women, what's to stop a rapist from claiming he's a trans* woman and coming into our shelter" problem.
Leaving aside issues about whether, trans* issues aside, this kind of paranoia is a problem, it's pretty obvious why it's upsetting to the trans* community, but it's something quite a few feminists are unwilling to budge on, or want to hedge things (ie, "only if you look female enough" "only if you don't have a penis" "you can come in but you have to wear a red T on your shirt"), and it seems to be making some trans*-activists question whether female-only spaces and gendered spaces in general are a good idea. There's also issues about people who don't identify as male or female, can they come into safe spaces, women's bathrooms, men's bathrooms, etc, which brings up many of the same issues.
Okay, so, like I said, I'm not the most versed in these issues, and I probably oversimplified things a lot, but I think that the basic conflicts really do exist, and I think they should be talked about here (in a respectful and touchy-feely manner) rather than brushed under the rug while pretending feminist and trans* activism are totally compatible and have no issues to work out.
"First is the whole "gender is constructed" vs. "gender is innate" thing. If gender is entirely a social construct (as some feminists, although not all, believe) than it's not a large leap of logic to conclude that trans*-people are in a sense deluded"
I don't think it is possible to discuss that civilly and respectfully and thus I don't think it should be discussed. As Josh T said to another commenter, "our comment was very hard to read because it pathologizes my very identity."
If a feminist says that, they are saying that since a trans person's existence conflicts with her/his feminism, the trans person shouldn't exist. I think that is fucked up. These aren't abstract principles we are talking about, these are people who have just as much of a right to exist as you do.
Here is a hint to all those feminists: try to be HUMAN first, feminist second. Feminist ideology doesn't give someone a right to be hateful on this blog
FWIW, I don't think that naught necessarily would personally agree with this comment -- they just seemed to be presenting matter-of-factly what some of the conflicting viewpoints are, and it sounded like a pretty decent analysis to me (...which means that I think that, on further inspection, it actually reveals the view that transpeople are "deluded" as itself really, really suspect).
Yes, I apologize if I wasn't clear. I was trying to present a viewpoint I view as faulty. I do not personally think that trans* people are deluded.
I was considering posting a longer version of the following as a community post (and still might, once we can again have community posts about trans issues with comments...)
In general, I see gender as mostly socially constructed. But even if society were to have no gender, I'd still be trans. My body would still be wrong, and I'd still want and need to do something about it, via hormones, surgery, some futuristic tech, etc. (One could describe me as transexual, although I loathe that word and don't identify as such. I also loathe the description "a woman trapped in a man's body", but that's another topic.)
But in the present society, we do have gender, so there's another issue in addition to my body. With the social constructed roles of man and woman, I see the latter as fitting more closely. And I've felt that way before I was aware of any of these concepts; I felt more like other girls than boys, in some vague way that didn't have to do with specific interests or such. I don't mind pretending to be a guy occasionally, as long as it's only when I choose. But even then it carries with it certain assumptions that can be problematic, and it's not who I am.
Other trans people's experiences are certainly different, but those are mine.
If I understand correctly, you're saying is that there's an element to trans*-ness (I'm not sure if that's the right word) that has to do with a physical sense of what one's body should look like versus what it does look like, and there's also an element with gender roles. It's the second where I see some possible conflict between "gender as purely constructed" and trans* experiences.
Incidentally, it my understanding that some trans* people are like yourself in that they have both the physical sense and the gender sense, but that's not true of all trans* people, and there are some who do not have a physical sense (or less powerful a sense) that their body is wrong, but do have a sense that their gender is something other than the binary they were given. This makes me think gender identity can be discussed sensibly on its own.
"Gender as purely constructed" is a bit vague. There are some feminists (I linked an example from Feministing below) who hold that there is no difference whatsoever in the way that children think based on genetic sex. I'm not sure what your opinion on the truth of this proposition is, but I know that some trans* people think this is not true.
An alternative I've seen suggested is that our gender roles are completely constructed, but that a learning mechanism in children makes them mimic the gender roles of "their" gender. This seems pretty compatible with trans* experiences, I think. Unfortunately this is about as far as my understanding of the topic goes so I'll leave it at that.
For me at least, both those are part of being trans, and to some degree distinct. ("Look like" isn't quite an accurate description, btw, as it's more what it should be like). That isn't true of all trans people tho, as you mention. There are some who are quite fine with their body, and it's just gender that is the problem.
If there are differences in how children think because of biology (whether it's from genetics or hormones or whatever), it seems likely that it's going to be only in terms of averages (ie the average girl is like A, and the average boy like B. But some girls will be more like B, moreso than some boys.) It's something that science might eventually answer; and while I'm curious what it is, I don't think it has much bearing on anything.
One of the theories for transsexuality posited by some transsexuals is that it is basically an intersex condition where the brain is one sex, while the body is another. Typically this'll get called Harry Benjamin Syndrome, giving it a name similar to other intersex conditions. There is however no way of detecting such a condition directly, so it remains a guess at the cause. This theory also doesn't explain any other trans identities, and I don't think it has much of a following among queer/feminist trans people, but I could be wrong.
Part of the problem with thinking about any of these things in an abstract sense is that there doesn't seem to be much of anything that all women have in common (besides considering themselves women). And the same goes for men.
I guess what it comes down to, in discussing the different theories, is that while gender identity is very real, where do those genders that people identify with come from? Is there something in a person's head that says "I am a woman" (and if so, what does that mean?), or do they look out in the world, see what genders society is presenting as options, and then feel drawn to one of those or some other gender identity outside of society's choices? But that's quite theoretical (and fascinating), and I don't think it has much bearing on people's experiences.
Yeah, unfortunately, I think we're decades at least away from being able to answer those questions scientifically. Sorry about the "looks like" vs. "is," I should have phrased it differently.
I think the issue is that a lot of feminism is wrapped up in theory, and that sometimes we try to force our observations to conform to theory instead of vice versa.
Thank you for this explanation. I had questions about what it means to feel that one's gender is at odds with one's physical body, and your comments have answered some of them. I appreciate your taking the time to explain this.
Whoa, wait a minute. I don't get this at all:
If gender is entirely a social construct (as some feminists, although not all, believe) than it's not a large leap of logic to conclude that trans*-people are in a sense deluded; that they've bought into an illusion so heavily that they're willing to "mutilate" themselves to enforce the reality of that illusion on their bodies.
That does follow if you're basing it on a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is to be a social construction. Just because something is a social construction doesn't mean it's not real, or that it's "all in your head." That's seriously out of alignment with the theory in this case. For example, money is a social construction. We impose value on paper or gold money and use it for our purposes, but it doesn't exist as a valuable thing "in nature." So does that mean that we're all deluded when we use money to buy things? Of course not. Similarly, gender is a social construction that we all grow up with. We're born already in the system of this social contruction, and conceptualizing people outside of a gendered system is very difficult for us. That's because, in our system, gender is very, very real. But that's different from being determined by biology or "nature" in some way.
I think there's overwhelming evidence to suggest that gender is a social construction. But here is a place where cisgendered feminists and trans folk have even more of a reason to be allies. Rigid gender constructions and gender essentialism hurts all of us. We would all be better of if we drove a wedge between gender and biological sex, and if we worked to loosen the norms and bring more fluidity and flexibility to the performance of gender. Categorizing gender as a social construction doesn't suggest that trans folk are deluded anymore than it suggests that cis folk, who are also performing gender each and every day, are deluded. We're only deluded if we think we have to perform the script that was assigned to us at birth or that we have to chose one or the other of the false binary. And replacating and reinforcing the false binary on a daily basis is harmful to everyone everywhere.
I wasn't saying I agree with that logic, but there definitely are people, including otherwise reasonable feminists, who do. Check the "reifying gender" post I linked - it discusses the idea more.
Yeah, I got that this was a view you were mentioning but not espousing. The thing is, instead of dismissing a social construction view of gender on the basis of this potentially harmful misinterpretation of it, we should clarify the theory itself to show people that their vlaims about the implications of it simply don't follow. I think it's incredibly helpful to understand gender as a social construct, and this is something that benefits everyone.
Okay, I get what you're saying. I thought you thought I was saying that it is inevitable that "gender is constructed" leads to "trans* people are crazy." However, I'm not sure it's a good idea to say that there's no connection between gender and biological sex. There's plenty of evidence they aren't the same thing, but that doesn't mean that the connections between them are entirely socialized.
Or for a closer-to-home example, http://community.feministing.com/2008/12/questions-about-transgender-th.html
I'd also like to hear some thoughts on the gendered spaces issue.
So what is This comment thread supposed to be about? Is it about how Feministing can be a safe(r) space for everyone, but particularly trans* folks? Is it a post that gets derailed by 101 questions (and then derailed by people arguing whether or not 101 questions are derailing)? Is it a post about cis privilege? Feminism and intersectionality?
(Is the answer "All of the above"? Are we--is this space--capable of taking them all on at once?)
I think Feministe has handled this topic a bit better. (Which is interesting, because I actually like the comment format better here--at least in terms of allowing nested replies and ratings.) As individual posts started to veer in other directions in comments, the editors there created new posts, linked back copiously, and vigilantly kept commenters on-topic.
Oh, and they're also continuing to write about trans* issues, and not just from a cis lens, which I think may ultimately be more important.
It's true, for the sake of trying to have a well-moderated comment thread, we're combining a number of discussions into one space.
I think the answer is all of the above, and has to be for the time being.
This is not necessarily a plan to do this for future discussions that blow up at Feministing, but an attempt to do it for this discussion, today, when emotions are high.
We're going to have a more focused discussion on commenting and moderation soon (aka what would you all want to see from us as editors), so there will be a space for that.
I think this is to allow people to continue the conversations they were having on the other threads, and things they might have wanted to say if they've been part of the discussions about these topics at other blogs recently.
Since people can thread their comments, the issue of derailing is different for us here. Multiple conversations can go on at one time. I think that's okay.
This is only one slice of this conversation. We've engaged it in before and we will keep engaging in it, in our posts and on the community blog.
First, I appreciate how quickly & frequently you've weighed in here in the comments. With the usual acknowledgments of how busy y'all are in your real lives, it's still sometimes frustrating to not see more of the OP in a comments thread.
And those are fair answers. I'm particularly happy to hear that you won't be doing this as a general rule when we get major conflagrations.
It might be nice, though, to do a similar round-up when there are multiple community posts on a single topic. I know y'all feature community posts, sometimes put them on the main page & include them in the weekly link round-up, but it's really nice to see several grouped by a clear theme. I find the sheer volume of posts in the community section overwhelming and tend to only RSS the main site, so I know there's a lot I'm missing.
That's a good idea about more frequent community round ups. We'll take that into consideration. Thanks!
More thematic community roundups motion seconded! :)
Thirded
I genuinely don't mean to be rude but commentators who really feel like they do not have the freedom to berate and insult marginalized people due to big bad moderators should find another blog. As a POC, the argument that the burden is on the minority to educate is OFFENSIVE. It is not just wrong, it is OFFENSIVE. You are already on the internet so jfgi. But people don't want to google, they want to be taught - for two reasons I think.
1. They want their attempts to learn to be acknowledged with the gratitude that they think is owing to them for being so 'progressive'. They are the 'great ally' and need to be told so.
2. They feel that a minority exists to satisfy their own curiosity and so must provide every personal and embarassing detail about their life. They don't just want a statistic or definition, the like of which is all over the internet, no, they want to really *feel* the every second of the anguish of that rape/oppression/abuse.
I can think of no other reason for someone with the internet who is familiar with the site would post and wait 30 min or more for a response to a simple definition, rather than google/search past posts/infer.
I think we have to be willing to stand up as a community and tell the trolls to fuck off somewhere else. Not just the trolls but the racists, transphobics, homophobes and mysogynists - all of whom *think* they are furthering conversation and 'just asking questions' and 'want to learn'. Just go away. The conversation on the Professor Foxy thread was like being in the internet proper - not a feminist space. Women who drink can't be raped? Take your rape as a 'learning opportunity' so you will *behave better next time*. W.T.F.
I think we need big notices at the top of each thread on a controversial issues saying what is and what is not acceptable. With a link to 101 threads. And a link to derailing for dummies. After than we need banning for repeat offenders. I think there should be more banning and for less. Soon, when these trolls/troll-lites can no longer trigger people and get attention with their lame act, they will go back to the rest of the internet where they belong.
I think we should have a period of limited postings and heavy moderation to hopefully run them off. And in this time all posters should pledge to ignore them or just post troll or flame then ever they post. We should call it the great feministing purge (I'm getting inspired).
By the way
Sorry if this feels derail-ish cos I used non trans examples - I didn't want to inappropriately hi jack someone else's experiences or try to speak for another group. I just feel very strongly that the posts on trans issues reflect an ugly underbelly to feministing which has been tolerated by commentators and posters because it doesn't affect many of the posters/commentators.
I was going to respond to your response over at the '5 things' thread, but it might be best if I let it drop. So on a different note, i.e. this note...
I think a third reason why people ask a specific member of the minority is because they realize the value of that person's first-hand experience. I think it can be a show of respect, like, 'I want to understand this better and I know you know it better than anyone else, I know you have the most accurate information.' I think as long as one asks in the right way, making it clear that s/he doesn't want brownie points and that s/he doesn't at all feel the other person owes hir an answer, then it can be a really positive way to engage.
This is very, very true. I don't necessarily know what Google terms to look up if I want information about a topic like this, or what sites to trust. I also sometimes have specific questions that Google won't necessarily provide a good specific answer to. I think these things are true of other people who are trying to educate themselves about oppression issues as well. However, oppressed people should not have to be educators everywhere they go, so links to sources of 101 information in posts about trans issues (or other issues that some Feministing readers may not be familiar with) would be very useful.
I think systematically linking to 101 threads is a great idea.
"I can think of no other reason for someone with the internet who is familiar with the site would post and wait 30 min or more for a response to a simple definition, rather than google/search past posts/infer."
I think that a lot of this has to do with the fact that people view Feministing as a community and as a resource for education and enlightenment. I think part of it also has to do with the fact that questions posted in-thread are intended to seek answers that are relevant and accurate in the estimation of the other people posting. Asking a question at a site like Feministing is more likely to provide a response that is informed by progressive, feminist theory than a simple Google search.
I understand that it isn't your responsibility (as a POC, or a trans woman, or a lesbian, or a disabled person or any other oppressed group) to educate me (a privileged person) on any particular topic. However, I think that the proposed alternative (Just F***ing Google It) is not as simple or as effective as it is frequently being made out to be in some of these threads. I think, for example, after having been involved in some of this discussion, that JoshT or Kyriarchy's answers to simple 101 questions are likely to be far more valuable and informative than what someone is likely to find off of a Google search.
That is not at all to say that it is their responsibility to provide that information; I just want to point out that there are reasons for people to ask questions beyond those you posited.
Yes, exactly.
I just wanted (mostly) to second the general sentiment of this comment. Watching and participating in a number of these conversations in the last couple of weeks, I also feel like the "do your homework!" response it a little simplistic. Maybe this is the librarian/educator in me . . . but my reservations with that as a blanket response are two-fold:
1) It fails to recognize that some folks simply learn better or best when that learning takes place in a conversation, rather than text-based/web-based research. They take in what they learn much more effectively when they're in dialog with someone. This isn't always laziness or a learning failure -- it's just a learning style. Clearly attitude matters, and if someone is being rude that's a whole different issue. But naivete and asking elementary-seeming is not necessarily rudeness.
Particularly, I feel like, when it comes to questions of jargon, it's extremely loaded to tell someone to get their language exactly right or go do their homework before they be allowed to comment on a thread. Again, attitude matters -- and I realize that online it's hard sometimes to tell the spirit of what was meant. But the language of feminist and trans activism changes really rapidly . . . and I'm not sure how fair it is to expect everyone to keep up with it 100%. I don't expect my own family, for example, to know what I mean when I use words like "kyriarcy" or "transmisogyny" . . . but I know their hearts are in the right place.
2) What Unequivocal said about the quality of answers: a Google search will probably find someone the answer to what "cisgender" means. Maybe. Or eventually. But what's the quality of that answer going to be? This stuff is complex even to those of us who care deeply about learning and devote a significant amount of time to feminist issues. I feel like part of my own activism, anyway, is to be encouraging to folks who are trying to learn by offering the resources I have at my disposal when I can. I don't want to set some sort of knowledge litmus test for participation in feminist discourse. A basic human decency/respect litmus test, sure. A willingness to listen and grow, sure. But not a "you have to know X before you are worth our time" test, no.
I realize there are caveats to this, and reasons why "101" questions are sometimes inappropriate in certain spaces . . . but I don't like the "come back when you know more" approach as a basic policy because I feel like a space like Feministing IS an educative space, and SHOULD be a place for learning -- even at the "101" level.
So it would be just fine and dandy for you if every time we talked about rape some dude came on the blog and wanted to know what rape was? Or every time we talked about domestic violence some dude asked how domestic violence was different from assault. How about if every thread started with a question about what is feminism anyway? Or even better, every thread started with a guy questioning whether we should be allowed to speak, since he has this theory of female behavior that indicates that women are too stupid to think.
Kristen, please re-read my comment and note where I say things like "clearly attitude matters" and "I realize there are caveats to this, and reasons why 101 questions are sometimes inappropriate in certain spaces." I am not saying that there are no limits to acceptable behavior or that people who challenge the entire premise of feminism and/or (in this case) the relevance of trans rights and issues in feminist spaces should be given hearing here. However, I've been reading *a lot* of the blog threads about the comment moderation issue here and at feministe this past week, and I feel like it's important to keep in mind the distinction between what is hateful behavior and what is naivete.
Clearly, individual blogs get to decide if they want their blogs to be spaces for high-level, insider-only discussions or a place for more multi-level, diverse conversations (both are essential -- I love a high-level conversation myself!). However, one of the things I value about feministing is its wide-ranging focus in terms of issues and also the perspectives of its participants. I would be sad to see younger folks or people new to feminism (see Liz N's comment below) feel shut out of the conversation here when it could potentially serve as a launching pad for them as they explore more issue-specific corners of the blogosphere.
Does it matter if they ask out of naivete? If the conversation constantly revolves around the education of others and others *expect* you to always take the time to educate them...don't you see how that would be frustrating and a reflection of privilege?
Regardless of whether it's done out of good intent or not, when 101 question end up derailing conversations -- especially when they routinely do so -- then yeah, it is frustrating and it is effectively silencing.
(Silencing can happen from good intentions just as much as from bad ones. As Zyfron points out, we didn't have any flamefests today, but neither did we really discuss any of the posts that were lumped together.)
FWIW, problem of "naivete derailing" -- and the flipside problem of "insider" conversations among old timers that are inscrutable and impenetrable -- are common to all sorts of online communities I've seen over the years.
That said, it's not an either/or thing. Personally I lean toward "when in doubt take a minute to educate" -- though it's when people expect to be spoonfed that I get irritated -- and there's a variety of ways one can design an online communities to deal with these issues, such as:
- Having a good set of 101 resources. Yes, it may require a particular group of people, such as trans people, to educate the majority, but personally I'd prefer to point people to something I think is a good resource than depend on the vagaries of Google.
- Including a link to these resources in an endnote to posts telling people go explore them if they want more background, preferably before asking what's probably a 101 question.
- Both mods and other people in the discussion gently nipping 101 derailments in bud by asking people to check out the resources. Tone is important in how this is done -- it's one thing to come across as "STFU and RTFFAQs" and another to say "hey I know want to learn more, but discussing it here is doing to derail things, however you can learn more here..."
- Being explicit when something's an "advanced class" discussion, or when it's a discussion where we're intentionally trying to hear from people who get shut out -- where 101 questions are specifically discouraged, and why.
- Remembering to have "101 posts/discussions" at regular intervals where basic questions are encouraged. These questions may be old hat to people who've been around awhile, but usually they're new to someone else.
I think this is a really, really good idea. Because with all due respect to what has been said - and there were some very good points brought up - asking 101 questions, no matter how well-intended, no matter how constructive it's meant or how politely phrased, is derailing if it's not a 101 conversation. And although the vast majority of people who comment know their way around basic feminist issues well enough that this kind of derailing does not happen *that* often on most posts, it seems as if whenever the topic turns to minority issues it happens over. And over. And over again.
I suppose that rather than look at the intention of people derailing, I want to look at the effect it has on the conversation. I worry that making it about *why* people derail is, once again, making it about the privileged and how difficult it is for them to educate themselves and winds up marginalising the minority group and making it their responsibility to educate people. So - I really like the idea of having regular 101 posts and making absolutely clear how welcomed 101 questions are in other posts. That way the well-intended people who just want to learn can ask their questions there, trans people don't have to engage them unless they want to and higher-level conversations can proceed without derailment.
Even mod responses to derailing questions with, "This is a 101 question, please take it to post X, which is specifically for Issue 101 questions. If you post further such questions on this thread, they will be deleted," would be a very beneficial to both stop derailing conversations while providing a ready opportunity for such derailers to educate themselves.
A very beneficial WAY to stop, sorry.
In response to all of the comments replying to my last comment above -- good points all. I certainly look at this as a very personal call: how much time/energy do I have to engage? And I completely respect people who don't want to do this.
However, I was thinking on a policy level, at a blog like feministing that acts as a clearinghouse for many different feminist issues and people who are at many different levels of discussion, we should be mindful of how our insider status IS a privilege HERE -- perhaps not anywhere else -- but here, it is.
Clearly, there are a lot of intermediate solutions between catering to every question and telling people to fuck off. And I'm glad all these nuances are coming out in this thread.
This comment thread is such a mess, and I have no idea where (or, honestly at this point, IF) I should place this comment, but:
I really agree with what annajcook is saying here.
Especially this: "I realize there are caveats to this, and reasons why "101" questions are sometimes inappropriate in certain spaces . . . but I don't like the "come back when you know more" approach as a basic policy because I feel like a space like Feministing IS an educative space, and SHOULD be a place for learning -- even at the "101" level. "
I am young and new to feminism, and a LARGE part of my education on feminism has come from the feminist blogosphere, feministing in particular. I've been wanting to engage in the dialog, make posts, ask questions etc- but honestly, I've been pretty afraid to. I do think it is (or should be) standard web etiquette to "lurk" a little while and gain general knowledge on a subject/community before diving in, but I've been reading feministing for several months now and I'm still really anxious about commenting.
This, in large part, is because I so frequently see extremely hostile responses to posters who 1) ask questions in the wrong place, 2) mis-identify or omit something that then offends someone else, even in a post that is otherwise completely agreeable, 3) somehow fail to make their point clear to even just a small subset of the people who read it, or 4) just plain disagree.
Now, I understand that feministing has different discussion goals in mind than, say, a free-for-all on social issues might; concerns about being a safe space and not silencing people are important. I have learned a lot about the importance of this and the way to do this through the course of reading about this whole Transphobia issue, thread derailment and etc.
I in no way want my comment to be seen as an attempt to silence anyone else, but I also want to make it clear that this extremely hostile attitude - even if it is coming out of a place of hurt and a desire for protection, for a safe place - is also silencing. It is silencing to people who want to add to the discourse, constructively, but are afraid that they might somehow be doing it wrong- and that they will be treated with great hostility for it.
Is thinking through a comment before posting it good? Is doing some basic research before demanding all your questions be answered good? Of course, yes.
But is scaring off a lot of young people who are new to feminism, serious discussions of racism, classism, trans issues or any of the many important things that are discussed on feministing a good thing, too?
Because I don't think it is. And I think a happy medium can be found between safeguarding against trolls / inappropriate thread derailment / etc, and creating an environment that is outright hostile to those not as "in the know"- to those trying to get "in the know."
Liz, just want to say thanks for your brave and thoughtful contribution to the thread!
I think you articulate really well the necessity of being mindful about the ways in which protected space for feminist conversation is constructed. I firmly believe there are ways to do this that do not depend on elitism and exclusivity (that is jumping all over people who aren't totally up-to-date on the lingo) -- yet still refuses to give people spewing vitriol a platform (no, people who refuse to accept and respect trans folks' right to self-definition do not belong here).
Is that a daunting balance to maintain? Yes. Is any moderator of a comment thread on tough issues going to make a judgment someone else thinks is biased one way or another? Yes. But I, personally, think it's really important as activist bloggers to keep striving for that balance.
Thank you for this. It is important to point out, though, that while hostility is ABSOLUTELY silencing (something I struggle to point out because it invariably invokes more hostility), it is a different kind of silencing than the one that trans women are talking about here. It comes from a different place, a different social and historical context. It is not, however, an okay thing. We all need to be civil and accommodating, even if it's frustrating sometimes (IMHO). If someone doesn't want to engage, this probably isn't the best blog to be on, with all due respect.
It is silencing to people who want to add to the discourse, constructively, but are afraid that they might somehow be doing it wrong- and that they will be treated with great hostility for it.
The problem here is that in talking about the issues facing trans persons, cis women are not the oppressed. We're the privileged. We have the social/political power and trans persons do not. Our voices carry more weight than the voices of trans persons.
The privileged are not silenced by the oppressed.
When a trans person expresses their frustration with me for fucking up or asking stupid ass questions, I am not silenced. I may STFU because I don't want to look stupid any more, but not because someone with privilege has used social pressure to make be not be heard. I'm the one with privilege and my voice will probably always be heard of hir voice.
Look, we all have privilege of one variety or another and we all are going to fuck up and hurt someone's feelings at some point as a result. It happens, we're human, and at the heart of privilege is the blindness that comes with it. When it happens you accept it, apologize, learn and move on.
Maybe silencing is the wrong word, but when someone speaks down to another person, or is rude, it makes that person less likely to engage. We aren't talking about 'the minority' or 'the majority'. We're talking two individual people. I get the point you're making, but sometimes a kind word and some patience go a long way... from both sides.
Please see my other comments on tone. People who are oppressed have a right to their anger. They don't have to hide it just to make their issues more palatable to the privileged.
I've read the comments on tone. People absolutely have a right to be angry, especially those who have been oppressed, but there are ways to deal with that anger that are okay and there are ways that are not okay.
And who gets to be the arbiter of when a trans person is expressing their anger inappropriately?
If I feel that a trans person- or any person- is being purposefully insluting or condescending to me, I will let hir know. And trans people- and all other people- have the same right in regards to how I speak to them.
If silencing in this context is a special word used only for what happens when those with privilage speak, I apologize for misappropriating it. However, I do hold to the opinion that what is happening is bad, and results in people not wanting to engage.
I’ve read over and over that people who are oppressed have a right to their anger. I’m having a hard time with this. On face value, it sounds right- it would be terrible to tell people what they can and cannot feel, especially when they have been hurt.
But I think EGhead is getting at what I’m talking about- we’re not JUST talking about “The Oppressed” and “The Privileged”, we’re talking about two people. I have been raised my entire life with the idea that you should always do your best to be at the very least patient and respectful- to everyone*. At least try. I’ve always believed that this is the best way to talk with people, the way that is most likely to involve them in the conversation. I am having a very hard time reconciling this with the idea that it’s, essentially, ok to be a jerk if your feelings are really really hurt. (or perhaps more accurately in this case, if they have been systematically hurt by society for many years.)
For what it’s worth, I also feel this way when I need to talk to someone who has privilege over me- ie, a white man. Even if he’s the 5000th man to ask me “wait, how can lesbians have sex?”, and even if I’m tired of answering that question, I’m going to take a moment, try to calm down, and answer his question, because he’s still a human being. And if I can’t answer his question calmly, if I have the option to ignore it (which we most certainly do have online), that is what I will do.
I’ve already gotten wordy enough, but just to cover all my bases I also want to say that just because someone has said something in a way you don’t like does not mean that your only response should be “I don’t like how you said that.” I think the one responding to hostility also has a responsibilty to try and work beyond it and have compassion/respect despite not being addressed the way they would prefer, at least to a point.*
I have tried to examine myself and see if this reaction from me is coming from a place of privilege. I’m thinking that in part it is- that I can “get away” with being courteous/patient/etc because as a white/cisgendered woman I do not have to fight so hard to be heard. But I guess.. I’m just not really comfortable with the idea that any situation is going to be made better by bringing more anger into it, I guess at this point I just really don’t believe that anger alone is ever the best answer. Maybe I will learn otherwise. Certainly, I cannot assume that what I have experienced is what everyone else has. But I think at least most people would agree that respect is preferable to a lack thereof?
*there is obviously an exception here for trolls & etc. I do not think the problem we are talking about is mostly trolls.
You said this so well; it's like you read my brain. Thank you!
I’m just not really comfortable with the idea that any situation is going to be made better by bringing more anger into it, I guess at this point I just really don’t believe that anger alone is ever the best answer.
You may not be comfortable with anger. You may have the patience of a saint. In all seriousness, good for you.
I think the difficulty we're having in understanding each other is this:
What you see as a polite question, to another person seems like the exercise of privilege.
For example, say you and I are at a conference discussing rape shield laws trying to organize legislation to protect rape victims and a perfectly sincere guy stands up and says something like "but wait, what do mean by consent" and then other men join in the discussion about consent and start questioning us about "well, what if she doesn't say no" or "but how can they ever prove that she didn't say yes". Now the conversation has shifted, we're no longer trying to hash out rape shield issues, we're not going to be able to accomplish our goals. Instead, you and I are going to spend all our energy explaining consent to these guys. Now if that happened, every time we tried to talk about rape shield laws after about a week, maybe a week and a half, I'm going to turn to the first guy and say..."Why don't you just fucking google it, okay? You knew we were talking about rape shield laws, but you want to turn the subject back to what you want to talk about. It's irritating and I don't want to explain it anymore. Go figure it out and stop interrupting all the freaking time."
This is possibly because I'm a complete bitch, but I would still consider that response perfectly justified.
Now imagine if that happened every time you wanted to have that conversation...for months...and in the meantime people were dying because you can't get everyone on the same page enough to work on the bigger issues.
Kristen, I think what you are getting at is a little bit different from what I was trying to say. I appreciate this though, because there is definitely a big hole in my post.
I was talking about these questions as just, shall we say, small "blips" along the post. Not as big derailments that kill off all other conversation. The situation that you describe does indeed justify a response along the lines of "You cannot engage in this conversation until you know a few things, we cannot take the time to tell you, please go educate yourself." However- there are some very key differences between your example, and what I was thinking about / have observed here.
1) Again, I was imagining these questions as "What is cis?" "Cis means X. For more info, see [link]." The end- the rest of the conversation continues on track, perhaps with one new voice. I realize that this isn't quite what happened- that's because of a lot of reasons. I do think it's entirely possible for exchanges to go the way I described, though, and I do not see that as harmful or really "derailing."
2) I've been thinking about this one all day- conversations in an online space do not funtion the way a conversation in real life does. Conversations in real life, by the way speech functions, are linear. That is, one person talks about one thing - one person responds to just that thing - one person responds to that, etc. Derailing is definitely a huge problem in this context- because there's no way to easily "get back" to where the conversation was before, or for people to branch off and carry on other tangential conversations of clarification/investigation.
This is, quite simply, not the way it works online! The wonderful thing about blogs/forums is that everything that's been said is right there. Even if one set of nested comments goes off track, the original post is right there to respond to, as are all the other comments. Furthermore, there is no problem with not being able to speak while someone else is talking - you can post whenever you want, and your post will appear, and be "heard". (Assuming people make it far enough down to read it, which is an issue, yes.)
3) Time. If we are having a conversation in real life, it can safely be assumed that we only have so much time to have it in. A tangential question in this situation is, clearly, not just a harmless side-discussion- it will literally take away time and effort that could be spent on the issue at hand. Again, this is not the case online- we have all the time in the world. These posts will stay open forever, the conversation can continue until everything that people want to say is said.
I wonder if maybe this will help clarify how I am able to expect a certain level of calmness in this space in particular? I think in different places, among different audiences, in different contexts and different forms of communication... well, there would simply be different threshholds. This makes sense to me.
I do think it's entirely possible for exchanges to go the way I described, though.
The problem is they don't. If you look at the majority of posts on trans issues we end up discussing "what is cis" on almost all of them. Sometimes repeatedly (more than one person asking the EXACT same question).
The second problem is that a lot of people find the "what is cis" question to be a perfect opportunity to point out that they are not privileged and so calling them "cis" is rude and gender is all socialized anyway...so pffttthhhhtt. (Denying the oppression of trans persons generally.) This isn't necessarily the intention of the sincere person who asked the question, but it is a consequence of hir question.
Even if the sincere questioner didn't intend to completely derail the conversation, ze ends up doing so because other cis people would prefer to talk about "what is cis" rather than the (for example) institutional transphobia within feminism.
In that sense, the question and the resulting conversation is the exercise of cis privilege (we want to talk about this, and we out number you so...guess what...this is what the conversation will be about, oh and don't be snippy about it, because I won't even listen to you unless you treat me with respect).
For that reason, a simple link and response won't work...because others are determined to hash out their issues rather than discuss the topic the author brought up.
With respect to time, I disagree that time is the issue. I think emotional energy is the issue. Do you want to wade through 50 to 60 posts about tangential concerns to find the two people who are still trying to engage the topic? Would you feel respected in a space if in a discussion of the domestic violence laws, there were 50 posts out of 60 discussing whether or not domestic violence was different from assault?
Frankly if I saw that, I wouldn't engage anymore. I'd just leave people to their idiocy and find a friendlier space, which is what many trans activist have done.
I understand that there are lots of people who are nervous about commenting, and it takes a while to gather up the courage to comment sometimes when you feel like other people are so much better informed and more articulate -- it's something I've experienced plenty myself, although I'm getting much more confident.
But I really struggle to see how you can perceive Feministing as a hostile place for young feminists -- I've been reading for several months and started commenting more recently, and while hostile and angry conversations do appear fairly frequently they seem to me to be generated almost exclusively by trollish behaviour and insincere questioning. I've rarely seen genuine, polite and constructive participation be condemned.
I have also perceived Feministing as hostile to young feminists looking to broaden their feminist interaction, like myself, at times.
Mostly this stems from the fact that much of the time someone asks a question outside of what is perceived by the majority community here to be expected knowledge, understood terminology or acceptable feminist ideology, the response is often incredibly harsh and isolating.
I have learned so much more about feminist issues from reading the comment boards and posts here than ever before in my life. But the frequencey with which people who are clearly NOT trolls are called "rape-apologists" or "porn-apologists" and similiar demeaning names implying they aren't REAL feminists in response to comments or questions that don't toe a specific ideological line is very disconcerting.
I agree with much of what you say here, but your skepticism of the ‘inquiring majority’ seems a bit unfair to me. Do you really not believe that anyone is sincere in wanting to better understand people unlike themselves? Do you feel that a person who visits another country, explores another religion, or recognizes that others in their own country (state, city, neighborhood) are underrepresented and misunderstood, and wants to help change that, is doing so only for their own curiosity?
I’m sorry; but if I recognize that my own life experience has left me ignorant of certain issues, I don’t think it’s self-serving to want to try and correct that ignorance (so that I can educate those around me, speak out against stereotyping, and use appropriate language: in sum live a more fair, sensitive, and inclusive life.)
I agree—it’s not the job of any minority to educate those in the majority. But if I’m part of a comfortable majority (and this is a sincere question:) where is the best place to go? I would never approach someone on the street and ask questions about their life experience; but googling statistics doesn’t always cut it either, especially for issues that so much lack visibility.
(Case in point: the first time I saw “cis” here, I DID try to do the research myself. What did google give me? “Commonwealth of Independent States.” I didn’t know to look up “cisgender” but was afraid to ask.)
If I ask questions, it’s not because I “want my attempt to learn to be acknowledge with gratitude.” If google statistics aren’t enough, that doesn’t make me voyeuristic: it means I recognize that a number doesn’t explain the human cost of oppression.
The complex discussions that take place here don’t show up on Wikipedia, and that’s why I come here. I see Feministing as a great resource and community: it’s a voluntary dialogue and a great place for helping educate each other about the many ways we experience (and can better participate in) the issues and struggles and stereotypes that populate our society.
I don’t think anyone should have to put themselves on display to answer a question; but if they are willing to share their story to help educate, (or to point me toward a good resource!), I appreciate that. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
Most of your post is really, if you strip it down, just a fairly long justification for placing the burden of your education on others. These issues don’t lack visibility – they are everywhere, especially online. Look at blog links, go to a library and yes google stuff. Saying things like ‘it’s an educative space’ are disingenuous when you are really advocating other people educating YOU by interrupting a fairly complex thread to ask a basic question.
Look, the comments are an online conversation. Imagine you are at a feminist conference and you see two people were talking about the Angie Zapata case. Imagine they are sitting there discussing transpanic and the media and police investigations and how they displayed transphobia. Would you really just walk up and interrupt and say ‘excuse me, what does cis mean?’ Or would you try to infer it from what they were saying, maybe join and add something to the specific conversation and then *maybe* ask what it meant. It’s not about being mean vs being nice or being naïve vs being a troll. It’s about thinking that a conversation that someone is having must primarily revolve around your concerns. This is privilege. Clearly this thread exists because the moderators at feministing agree that this space is not a class for privileged feminists to ‘learn’ with the rest of us in servitude.
This is especially frustrating because the community feministing board allows you to start threads. Most people do not have the bottle or interest to start their own thread but they are happy to derail other peoples – is that fair? For example, whatever2 below: ‘where does cis come from?’ Erm… start your own thread. Go and do some linguistic investigation yourself. Run some searches. Then you tell us. Unbelievable. And then a snotty attitude to boot. It is obvious that whatever you believe, people feel that it is their right to get an answer when they demand it, on whatever they like. Even if they phrase it nicely, their needs come first. And then you dare to call the rest of us hostile because we don’t want to play along.
And BTW you are setting up a false dichotomy which is particularly jarring to me as a POC. Either people on feministing let you (politely) derail threads or you won’t learn because the only alternative is strangers on the street (WTF?). Really? Really? The only alternative to derailing threads is asking strangers on the street? Really? I guess no none feministing user must ever ask a race question then. That’s so funny because I guess the fact that people I know have continuously questioned me about race my entire life must be a figment of my imagination. I guess being asked about black hair, racism, music, culture, crime 10x times a week since I was a child just didn’t happen. I guess correcting terminology, explaining why well meaning statements were ill founded, watching people essentialize and other me (but they didn’t mean it!) didn’t grind down on me. I must have imagined the continuous education that I and almost every minority has been compelled to play IRL. Liberal lovely people – who asked the same questions day in and day out. Wow, I was never singled out in classes, never called to defend the whole race (who of course were maligned any time one person messed up), never had to step up when friends/colleagues/teachers/strangers made racist or prejudiced comments. None of these people could be bothered to read a book, do some thinking or yes FUCKING GOOGLE IT. I am black, I have to live with race everyday and guess what I STILL RESEARCH RACE MYSELF. I still google stuff. I still read articles and blogs – information is not beamed into my head from the black mother ship in the sky. Most minorities desperately seek out and process this information to make sense of their lives and experiences. ‘Allies’ it seems can not even be bothered to spend 10 min on the internet. Here is a link to a wiki article on interracial marriage (something I get asked about A LOT) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage Guess what? You should read it. Before you ask me any questions you should read it. Because it explains definitions, history and links to hundreds of articles. It won’t kill you – it can only help us have a better conversation about it.
I can imagine that you are silently protesting ‘but if you don’t want questions, you shouldn’t be on feministing’. And that’s why this conversation is so irritating to me. Most marginalized groups DO happily educate all the time especially online. Thread after thread on issue after issue. Everyone wants engagement, everyone wants learning, everyone wants growth, everyone wants a strengthened movement. But derailing threads is a specific issue – and it is one of interrupting people’s conversations and forcing them off. It's about removing the only spaces they have.
And btw - if whole groups are willing to leave a space over something then you have to be prepared to admit that it is not just that they are all ‘mean and hostile’ (just a bad batch – where’s a ‘good’ minority when you need one) and that they don’t realize how important YOUR education is. Setting up a false dichotomy (that derailing = education and that is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING) is just another way to silence people and demand they work to your agenda. You have to be prepared to admit that your agenda may not be paramount. And truly compromise.
Plenty of people (including myself) suggested ways to provide 101 stuff for everyone but turning this thread into a pity party for poor privileged types who just need lots of support and help would be funny if it wasn't so utterly frustrating.
I want to click "I Liked this comment" one hundred million times.
I just wrote a comment on this thread replying to someone saying that I don't think Feministing is a hostile environment for young feminists who want to ask questions ... and then I read your comment, and I kind of want to take it back.
Generally I don't disagree with the content of what you wrote, but actually your reply to Radishette is really quite aggressive and you pretty much fail to address what she wrote (which was very polite and constructive). She talked about the possibility of education through dialogue on Feministing and how much more it's possible to learn here compared to just googling something; and you went off on her about people derailing threads, which is something quite different.
Not helpful.
Re: Tone.
http://uppitybrownwoman.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/i-dont-like-your-tone-missy/
I think you've missed my point -- that there is a disconnect in the subject matter between radishette's comment and polloly's comment, which makes polloly's reply a poor one.
"but actually your reply to Radishette is really quite aggressive"
I'm tired of the tone comments. Feminists should know better...we've been shut down because people thought we were too aggressive since the dawn of time.
Blah, my reply to you was a bit lazy. Clarification: I think it's about the combination of polloly's reply being aggressive in tone while the content not having that much to do with what radishette wrote. Constructive replies will actually address what they are replying to; not go on the attack on something related.
If polloly wants to make lots of angry replies to people who are derailing threads, then great, but radishette wasn't one of those people (AFAIK) and she didn't deserve that reply. It's about context.
Radishette, annajcook, unequivocal - all making roughly the same point. How can we learn if you don't teach us? If you can't see the connection between that and my post, then I think your privilege is showing.
I'm NOT moderating my tone so you might as well stop mentioning it. These are tough issues and mealy mouthed self congratulation (what you are peddling) is really not very helpful. Even attempts to compare being 'silenced' by not allowing derails is pretty offensive and ridiculous but I let that go.
Btw - congratulations on attempting yet another derail by not taking on the content of my post at all. I mean this genuinely (no snarkiness): are you sure that you are not just attempting to make the conversation into something that you feel comfortable with? Because if you were, this would be how you would do it.
Derailing for dummies - it's a classic
My question is actually just How can I learn? You have no more right to assume WHY I want to learn than I do to assume it's your job to teach me (which I don't). I just want someone, anyone who is willing, to give me a little direction, and several commenters below have done so. That's all I was looking for.
This mentality of constructing malicious motives for anything a privileged person does that breaks the rules is exactly why people like radishette become frustrated in their attempts to learn. It DOES silence people--albeit, it does so within confined spaces rather than within the larger society where they are still privileged--and it honestly doesn't elucidate truth or help anyone, IMO.
Hi everyone, stepping in for a moment... I'm really just sort of befuddled as to how this particular thread is still going in the way that it is. Do you guys seriously not at all see why pololly is saying what they are & even why they might be somewhat irate at this point? I don't think that any of you are asking these questions out of some kind of intentional malice or anything, it's just... are you really defending the right of the privileged majority to show up and ask point-blank questions -- in this thread, right now? And complain about someone's tone, in this post? Doesn't this seem like one of those times where it might be so extra-infuriating, given that this is the very sort of thing we are trying to figure out how to deal with, such that maybe, just maybe, now is not the appropriate time??
To be honest, I don't think there's even that much disagreement going on here. As far as I can see no one is saying "you must teach me!" and no one is defending derailing threads. I disagree with Polloly's interpretation of Radishette's post, I think it was unfair of her to read into it a defence of thread derailing.
A bit pointless of me to rabbit on about it, but like I said it was triggered by Liz N's perception of hostility in commenting here (a view I don't generally share).
I'd also like to say that all the ideas about 101 resources are great, and perhaps to lessen the impact of thread derailing people could choose not to reply to those questions which they don't feel are appropriate for the discussion. Nobody's obliged to respond to anything, and if 101 resources are well signposted (perhaps on the original post, as some ppl were suggesting) then those can be taken advantage of. It might still be annoying, but it's kind of like not feeding trolls.
Or, in other words -- can't we just give trans people & allies at least a moment of unqualified solidarity here?
I second what kisekileia said.
pololly, I'm actually speaking from the perspective of an educator/blogger/insider (when it comes to feminist issues), not demanding that education from anyone else. A big part of this thread is about how the "feministing community" -- both commenters and editors -- want to handle comment threads around contentious issues. I was putting my two cents in.
I believe that you are misrepresenting my opinion.
I am emphatically not saying it is anyone's responsibility to educate the privileged. I am saying that there are good faith reasons why someone might ask simple questions in-thread, and that not everyone who does so is motivated by either 1) a desire to be praised for being so progressive, or 2) a belief that oppressed groups are there solely as educators, coupled with a prurient and morbid desire to hear the sordid details of an oppressed person's suffering.
I don't believe that 101 questions are necessarily acceptable, I don't believe that the minority is obligated to educate the majority, and I don't believe that the education of the privileged should be allowed to derail discourse. I just don't believe that when these things happen it always occurs because of the malevolent motives that you posited.
The conversation on the Professor Foxy thread was like being in the internet proper - not a feminist space. Women who drink can't be raped? Take your rape as a 'learning opportunity' so you will *behave better next time*. W.T.F.
I can't help but wonder if some of this trolling is a result of the linkage from Wired w/r/t date rape ("shocking sex"!) in the new Seth Rogan flick. There was a lot of vitriol in the comments section over there and at least one guy was inviting people to come over here and try to "talk sense" to us...
I just want to thank the Feministing staff for trying to moderate comments so people don't have free reign to display their hatefulness.
And for people who feel they are being silenced, this link is for you:
http://getyourowneffingblog.wordpress.com/
Word.
And if you don't know a term (e.g. cis/cisgendered) then this site's for you:
http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/
With all due respect, why not share a useful site rather than a snippy one? I googled "cis" the first time I saw it (no use of "cisgender" in that post, so no starting point). Try it- nothing useful pops up.
So until "cis" has more widespread usage (or more online resources to explain it- which would be great!), it's just as easy (and more helpful) to answer people's questions or point them in the right direction than to discourage them.
I actually had to go to urbandictionary to find out what it meant. Offline, I've never encountered the word, not in LGBT groups (though there are clear signs that mine isn't very 'T'-centered) nor in academic sources. Things do change fast.
Step 1: Learn to use the internet
Step 2: Figure out what they're talking about. Hmmm... cis... Well, this is a site about feminism...
Step 3: What are these other people talking about? cis... transphobia... transgender... is this a gender issue?!
Step 4: Read... OH THERE IT IS!
Give a woman a fish, she eats for a day. Teach a woman to fish...
This was the kind of hostility I was talking about...
This is not a helpful attitude. See the posts above about the difference between general internet research vs. specific insights from members of this community.
I think it is also important to note that we aren't speaking solely about the definition of "cis." We're talking about base level questions in general. Google is not god.
And Wikipedia certainly isn't.
"I think it is also important to note that we aren't speaking solely about the definition of "cis." We're talking about base level questions in general."
I'm not sure everyone IS talking about base level questions. A lot of people are JUST talking about defining cisgender and defining other words. I don't see why you have an aversion to wikipedia definitions.
Again, my issue with "just Google it" or "just use Wikipedia" is a matter of quality and relevance. Wikipedia in particular, while tremendously useful overall, tends to be less authoritative than I would like when it comes to issues where there is a substantial amount of dissent.
Even in a simple "define your terms" sort of interaction, I hesitate to trust the internet at large to deliver accurate information. If the topic at hand was abortion rights and someone posed the question "but where exactly does life begin" I don't know that I'd tell them to Google or Wiki-search it.
but if the question is, 'what does cisgender mean,' simply supplying a Wikipedia link should be sufficient. Unless the post is actually talking about what cisgender means. Otherwise, the entire comment section does not need to be about the definition of cisgender. Supply a wikipedia link and move on.
Actually, the wikipedia page for "Transgender" is quite good...and addresses the meaning of cisgendered in the second paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender
Typing in "cis" at wikipedia brings you to a disambiguation page that includes cisgender: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis
Why do I think that if I came on Feministing and asked questions like "Who was Gloria Steinem, anyway, and what did she say?" I'd not receive the gentleness that some posters are demanding from trans women?