Quote:
Lately we have had issues arise in the topic of transgender people. There are valid societal issues about things like participation in sports, at what level, at whether puberty concluded before or after transition. Or the topic of at what age should medical intervention occur to assist in transitions and who gets to make those decisions. But I am concerned about the line of discussion that states that either there is no such thing as having a difference between gender identity and physical anatomy or that anyone who feels that way has a mental illness than a medical condition. I don't see how anything can be more insulting or denigrating to a group then saying to them they dont exist or are crazy. So where do we drw lines on these types of discussions.
Firstly, you are right at some level to be concerned about these two things. Two common modes of attacking trans people are one to weaponize mental illness in how it is used to characterize trans people and two to imply trans people don't exist due to various pseudo-intellectual babble about gender not existing. These are anti-trans tropes because of how frequently they are used to attack trans people. That said, it isn't like
every discussion along these lines is bad, people certainly can talk about mental health and trans people, and about what exactly gender means in a respectful and interesting way; for instance, mental health challenges in trans people motivate part of why I care about helping trans people.
So what is a moderator to do? Balancing the dual laudable goals of embracing free speech while creating spaces that are safer from hate speech and constant attacks against marginalized communities is a tension basically every social media platform, big and small, is having to grapple with. It isn't trivial.
For myself, I think it is less about deciding on a set of statements that are allowable/not allowable in a vacuum, but instead the test is whether someone is making a pattern of rhetoric to attack a marginalized community. This is an advantage over something like Facebook which has to have a sort of per-statement level of analysis, we can do per-individual analysis because we are much smaller and know each other better. We can see when someone is obviously trolling to try and say the most bigoted things possible just this side of the line over and over. We had a version of this with the misgendering conversation; people can quite reasonably accidentally misgender someone or articulate a genuinely held belief about pronoun usage, but the problem we had was someone deliberately trying to be disrespectful to trans people by means of misgendering them.
I'm also someone who tends to see politics through rhetorical narratives. So for instance, the same factual statement (say about crimes committed by black people) could be totally neutral, but could also be part of a systemic pattern by the person to weaponize selective statistics to constantly attack black people.