Every time I'm asked for "gender" on some sort of form-- which seems increasingly common-- I always put "decline to answer", since that is usually an option and "lol gender" isn't, unfortunately.

I would still love to know what identifying as a man means.

I think maybe you have to drive a pickup.

For the record I did learn that from the thread and have made an effort to never use the term - so there's that.

For whatever it is worth, I don't think this is why the thread continues to get locked. If we had one large thread such as, "Issues affecting transgender people" or "Government policy related to transgender people", nothing in the thread title would invite bad posting. If we had a million more narrowly tailored threads (e.g., "IOC policy with respect to transgender athletes"), nothing in the thread title would invite bad posting.

But you would get the same bad posting.

The fundamental problem is that transgender issues seem to bring out the worst sort of posting from some people, no matter how broadly or narrowly the topic is defined. And because that it true, any thread related to transgender people becomes a nightmare to moderate. And when a thread become a nightmare to moderate, moderators inevitably end up closing the thread.

Uke gets frustrated when the thread gets locked because the decision to lock the thread doesn't have much to do with whether the topic is intrinsically appropriate for a politics forum. Not really. But on the other hand, I am very sympathetic to moderators who are unwilling to devote huge amounts of free time to the thankless task of moderating a thread that inevitably brings out the worst in the forum.

I agree with Rococo that if we had a bunch of threads about whether males should be allowed in female prisons, boxing events, and bathrooms, that you would see worse posting and not better-- this is likely why Uke (perhaps subsconsciously) prefers an omnibus thread since when you break it down on an issue-by-issue basis, it's usually not good for his side.

And then from a moderation perspective, I'm not sure why moderators would want to deal with a half dozen problematic threads as opposed to just one.

Rococo didn't just say that if you had those specific types of threads that there would be worse posting, although he might readily agree. But he also didn't actually suggest that a bunch of narrowly focused threads would have worse posting either. He was saying that an omnibus thread and narrowly focused threads would both invite bad posting roughly equally.

I can empathize with Browser's point about having threads with specific trans topics, because you can decide from the get go if the topic is OK, and you can easily inform people when they veer from the topic. As long as they stay on topic, they aren't making "bad" posts since the topic was sanctioned from the get go. It seems less complicated to me.

I'll respond to each bolded comment in sequence.

1. There is zero precedent for disaggregating discussions of other minority groups because at least for the last 500 posts there has never been an aggreagate thread focused on any other minority group. Never. So the question is why do we need to aggregate only transgender issues? They are not somehow so uniquely "other" that it is impossible to robustly discuss issues that may affect them in the same way we have somehow been able to discuss the issues facing every other minority group in the forum without an aggregated thread.

You keep comparing threads that aggregate a topic like climate change to a thread that aggregates a group of people. They are not the same. If the best way to discuss issues affecting a group of people were to have aggregate threads then aggregate threads would have developed naturally when issues concerning that group arose. But they didnt.

2. While there is certainly a flurry of activity with antitrans bills, there is also a flurry of activity on anti crt bills, anti teaching of black history bills, anti abortion bills, anti "woke" bills, and others. But we have a crt thread to discuss crt events, we dont aggregate that into an African American issues thread, even though there are certainly a lot of tangential issues related to discussing crt. I certainly have not seen the discussion in the transgender thread being facilitated as posts alternate between discussions of dsm versions to level of sex drive in gay people. (not transgender people--do we need a gay issues thread or is it OK to just keep letting discussions of any of the lgbtq community stay in a transgender thread because they're "close enough?"

3. As I said, there are no restrictions per se on aggregating discussions on transgender people. Rather I have not seen any evidence that aggregating all transgender discussions in a single thread has facilitated or improved discussion of transgender issues. To the contrary, I have seen it be detrimental to the discussion as so many various topics get all lumped into the same thread. And if we are going to look at precedence, all the other discussions of minority groups seem to have flourished without an aggregate thread. No one makes the claim that discussions of those groups has been in any way restricted due to the absence of an aggregation thread.

4. You seem to be the one who wants to treat transgender people differently, not me. You want to single out the transgender community alone in this need for special handling. I want to instead treat the transgender community exactly like we do every other minority group. The restrictions you keep referring to simply do not exist. On the contrary, if a poster feels, for example, that an in depth discussion on just anti transgender bills pending before state legislatures where each bill could be discussed in detail would be valuable, he may feel restricted to posting in the transgender issue thread, because that's where we aggregate discussions about transgender related topics. His post and topic then gets diluted amongst all the other topics being discussed. Aggregation does not necessarily enhance discussion. It can often detract from it.

So after considering all of this carefully (and I appreciate Uke's and others perspectives and I gave them serious consideration) I have decided that we will try addressing transgender issues the same way we address other minority group issues. Then we will see how it turns out. If it turns out to be less effective than the transgender issues IV thread, I can always launch the transgender issues V balloon and see how far it gets before being shot down.

this is maybe a tiny thing, but my observation over the years is many people grew a bit. A but more informed, a bit more nuanced, a bit more perspective. Yes there was lots of transphobic trolling and attempts to centre the conversation around trans people causing problems, but there was also a lot of good. Heck, I grew too!

I don't know that narrowly focused threads would lead to worse posting. But I also don't think it would solve the problem that has plagued the omnibus thread in any significant way. I also suspect that a more narrowly tailored thread would quickly morph into an omnibus transgender thread.

That happened to an extent with the sports thread for sure, although it also felt like the sports discussion just dragged on forever.

My two cents:

Even though I have learned some things from the thread in it's three reincarnations, I would keep it closed. The thread will never serve ukes stated goals of creating a safe space. The subject matter invites too much hateful posting based on pseudo scientific nonsense opinions of lay persons. The differences in opinions on most of the topics within the thread are irreconcilable.

The benefit just isn't worth the costs of keeping it open.

These posts raise good points and I want to address them from both a discussion quality perspective and a modding perspective.

First, imo, the concerns about huge numbers of individual threads getting created is overstated. I doubt, that going forward with the new policy, you will see more than a handful on new transgender related threads appear. Maybe more, but certainly not a great deal more. What are the major issues facing the transgender community right now? How many are there to discussed and debated? How to accommodate the integration of transgender people in activities or facilities traditionally restricted to a single sex ( athletics, bathrooms, prisons, etc). Laws restricting the very discussion of the existence of transgender people at various levels of education; discrimination transgender people face in the workplace and legal protections for job protection; policies related to things like medical treatment and gender affirming treatments and whether the government or private insurance should cover it.

So that's four possible thread topics. Each of those topics could be discussed in depth as there are a wide variety of opinions on them, and there can be a lot of nuance in the positions. IMO any of those threads could facilitate a robust discussion on the topic. And if someone was interested in just discussing one or two of those topics and not the others, they could easily find the appropriate thread and get caught up to speed in the conversation quickly.

Now imagine these same four topics all discussed simultaneously in a single aggregated thread. The first problem, of course is that a new visitor interested in reading or discussing about transgender legal battkes has no way of knowing if that topic is even being discussed in the "issues" thread. And there is no easy way to find out, and find where the first post of that discussion begins in a thread with thousands of posts. And it is not esy to follow the discussion along, as in between posts on that topic could be dozens of posts on multiple other topics.

I think sometimes that gets lost is the fact that so many posters here have been posting for so long, and keep up on the threads on a daily basis. So you know what has been said about which topic. But it is not at all readily apparent to a new visitor where these discussions are. Itvis not a user friendly thing to sort through a multiple thousand post thread just to see what's been discussed.

This is why I believe, from a user perspective, that better, more detailed and more nuanced conversations take place in single topic threads versus aggregate threads. It doesn't mean that threads cant breathe, and the discussion expand a bit from the OP. And if that branching iff gains momentum, it can be broken off into a new thread on that new topic. If it's more of a sidebar discussion in the same trial, it concludes on its own.

Now, from a mod perspective, a few things. First, it's important to keep in mind that I, like most mods, do not keep up with every post in every thread in real time. So there is a time lag in even seeing new posts much less going back to see how a post fits into the context and flow of the discussion. So in an aggregate thread, there are many more posts to review at one time. I might click on a transgender thread, for example, in response to a post report, and see over 100 new posts. So I cant just act on the reported post in isolation. I need to see the context and the posters involved, see who is responding to what, etc.

The problem is that it may be that only 10 of those 100 new posts relate to the reported post. But I have to read all 100 posts to determine that. Had it been in a single topic thread it is much easier to identify the issue and take action. And from a time management perspective I can more effectively get uo to speed on a thread with fewer posts on the same topic, which allows me to check threads throughout the day as time permits, rather than needing a large block of time to wade through dozens of posts in an aggregate thread.

And lastly, it is much easier to identify and deal with both off topic posts and rule breaking posts in single topic threads. They jump out more, and are less likely to sneak through as I am trying to scan 109+ posts at a time.

It is for all of the above reasons that I have decided to try a different approach. If people continue to post in good faith, I think we will find that the transgender discussions are not restricted in any way, and may well be enhanced. If I am proved wrong, we can try something else. So I encourage anyone who wants to discuss a particular transgender issue to start a thread and see where it goes. As with the other changes, it's time to take the design off the drawing board, launch the balloon, and see where it goes.

Your logic is exactly backwards. Our front page is full of aggregated threads that are thousands or tens of thousands of posts long. That is the standard, rightly or wrongly. It is ONLY on trans issues (as opposed to Canadian issues or covid issues or education issues or any other "big tent" aggregate thread) that this issue of moderator enforced disaggregation is coming up. Consider all these arguments against aggregation:


Notice you are not making this argument against aggregation about any other issue. I only have a slight pro-aggregation bias for forum conversations in general - that is relatively neutral - but the objecting is to your singling out the trans aggregation thread as the only thread among every other aggregation thread that you are blocking. Whether it should or should not be aggregated is debatable - personally I think free flowing conversations where people can easily seed minor topics not worth their own thread is a benefit - but what shouldn't be debatable is one standard for trans issues and a completely different standard for every other issues.

Why are trans issues getting special treatment?


This seems...made up? What other minority group is having "flourishing discussions" in this forum? We talk about trans issues on this forum MORE than any other group - most barely get mentioned - and that is an appropriate thing given the salient focus on trans issues in today's society. Like sure there isn't a separate jewish issues thread, say, but that is because far from flourishing nobody is talking about it at all. If anything, you are proving why an aggregated thread is a good thing at generating thousands of posts of engagement on the issues.


Unfortunately, while this decision is particularly harmful because of how it selects one specific minority group to target your "disaggregation" views against in concert with many other restrictions on being able to talk about trans issues in our society, it is a decision that is becoming all too familiar. Taking a top-down approach where you pick up some seemingly random issue (noone on either side was arguing for more small threads instead of one big thread), take the heaviest moderation-centric approach, and seemingly just grow in your conviction to your own preset ideas (perhaps this is why you added that horrific phrase to this effect in the forum rules that noone ever changes their mind) with every post. It is unfortunate, but here we are.

The trans thread has been shut down and rebooted what 4-5 times now? The same thing happens every time, uke whines until he gets his thread restarted and then it becomes a cesspit. How about for once we just ignore him?

Note crucially that every one of these issues of an aggregated thread is true about ALL of our big aggregation threads that dominate the front page. Confusing for new users? Hard to follow? Multiple topics on top of each other? Have to skim lots of posts?

This is every aggregation thread.

But ONLY the trans aggregation thread is the victim of Browser's moderation. This is not the first - and won't be the last - place where trans issues get special restrictions, but it is pretty sad seeing it come from a putative ally of trans people.

Your list is a pretty good example of how the topics regarding trans people that you choose to focus on are all ones where (allegedly) trans people are the problem and need to be restricted. I agree all those topics are absolutely just fine in a single thread that flows and evolves, but why not focus on issues that affect trans people not ones where they are the alleged problem?

I suggested changing the OP and title yesterday to make it clear it was issues affecting trans people. Browser strangely ignored that post. But I agree, I think the problem has nothing to do with aggregation, the problem is with transphobic posting. Browser has completely wrong diagnosis of the problem, thinking the issue is something to do with too many topics on top of each other. Not at all. Clearly state what is and is not allowed posting, what the goal of the thread is, and if you enforce it 95% of the problems go away.

To your last sentence, I was also sympathetic to tame when he basically suggested he didn't have the time to moderate the transphobia and it was easier to just close it. He didn't have the time to moderate the forum appropriately, which is fine, neither do I, and hence why he has left. But Browser claims to be an ally who is willing to go in and block these things. So fix that! If there is still a problem with aggregation at the end of the day, ok sure, maybe fix that later, but he is starting at exactly the wrong spot.

Aren't you the guy who cheers for the thread to be closed every time, but then is a top 5 poster (I'll let others judge the quality of said posts) in each thread when it is opened?

Unlike tame, Browser seems willing to address transphobic posts which is what you've stated you wanted, right? I'd suggest he do that, as opposed to curtailing the way the non-transphobic parts of the discussions are allowed to unfold.

Uke is going to flip his **** for a few days, I'm telling you it's okay to just tune him out.

I don't think the bolded is entirely fair, as it implies that he is targeting the thread for illegitimate reasons. We have a lot of evidence now that threads devoted to transgender issues are unusually difficult and time consuming to moderate. browser is now suggesting that disaggregated threads will be easier for him to moderate. I don't know if he is correct, but if he is, that would be a valid reason to favor disaggregation for some topics but not others.

DSM-1 doesn't say much about homosexuality. DSM-2 gave homosexuality it's own code as a mental disorder/illness.

To your question: I've only read excepts and summaries from the various DSM's.

Not sure we can pursue this much further in the Moderation Thread, though.

Well those issues do affect trans people. That's why they're issues...

An anonymous online politics discussion forum on a poker website might be one of the worst places to create a "safe space" for any group or topic whatsoever. This place ain't no support group.

Hey Sport, I'll let my team of psychologists and psychoanalysts tell me what my problems are, not you, buddy!!!

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm gonna start calling Uke "The Man from GLAAD."

Can I say "Amen" to you without you going ballistic ()