I’m writing to request that ganstaman be recused from moderating the ongoing discussion on trans-identity. While I fully support the right of every individual to be respected and treated with dignity, I believe that the role of a moderator should be to facilitate open and honest discussion rather than enforce a particular viewpoint (especially one lacking in evidence).

In this case, the moderator has made it clear that any dissent from the idea that trans identities are unquestionably valid will be met with infractions or bans:

This approach not only stifles meaningful debate but also precludes the possibility of discussing the underlying issues in a way that respects differing perspectives. Forcing participants to agree with a particular stance under threat of punitive action is essentially begging the question and shutting down any chance for genuine dialogue.

Furthermore, conflating critical discussion with hateful speech does a disservice to both the conversation and the individuals involved. There is a significant difference between engaging in a reasoned discussion about complex issues and engaging in actual hate speech. By equating the two, ganstaman is not only censoring valid points of view but also undermining the purpose of the forum as a space for robust and nuanced discourse. What's the point of having this thread in the first place if the moderator has already decided on the answer? I am not the only person to notice and have an issue with this, either.

This kind of authoritarian moderation approach can be perceived as fascist, as it seeks to suppress free speech and enforce a singular perspective without allowing for the open exchange of ideas. It’s critical that we maintain the integrity of our discussions by ensuring that all voices are heard and that moderators facilitate rather than dictate the direction of the conversation. I'd prefer the moderator respond to actual incidents of flaming/trolling than delete my posts under the guise of preventing such a thing from being catalyzed.

I urge the admins to consider these points and take appropriate action to recuse ganstaman from moderating this particular discussion. A more balanced approach is essential for fostering a healthy and productive debate on this important topic. At the very least, I'd love to know whether 2+2 is officially captured by the gender cult so I can kick rocks and fully disavow the board.

Cheers,
Phresh / -Skeme-

Addendum:

I should clarify that my request of recusing him from modding that discussion is contingent on the idea that he wouldn't acknowledge his overstepping of mod duties (which tbf, he may have free reign to do whatever, which I'd like clarification on). I'm obviously fine with keeping him/whoever as a mod if we can agree that he shouldn't be banning members for wrongthink or injecting his flimsy stances into discussions as indelible, unquestionable truth. I think that's a fair request.

At the very least, we should have more leeway in a thread specifically dedicated to discussing the issue itself. It'd be like starting a thread on bigfoot and banning anyone who suggests there's no evidence to validate bigfoot's existence. DUCY?

I have too much going on in my personal life today and tomorrow, and I now have a cold, so I likely will not be around much for the next day or so (or maybe I will?). And with my cold, I couldn't read all this. So I will just give a brief response for now and let the thread go where it may.

The point of the threads on trans issues in the Politics forum isn't to decide if people are trans. It is to discuss issues surround trans people. We can discuss how to handle them in sports (from the level of elementary schools to the Olympics), prisons, and bathrooms without doubting if they are really trans. We can discuss what happened with Bud Light (?) without doubting that Dylan Mulvaney (?) is a woman. What I "decided on" as "the answer" is not the topic of the threads.

We have had many iterations of threads on trans issues over the past several years, so the current rules were not created from thin air, but instead from observing the problems that developed. These rules, which were agreed upon by other Politics mods and given the ok from the mod forum in general, are that you can't say that all trans people actually just have a mental illness, that for all of them their trans identity is fake. The reasoning is:
1) We don't believe this to be true, and it's hurtful to trans people. Saying that their identity is actually just their brain being crazy is mean. 2+2 doesn't want to support such meanness.
2) Instead of allowing the discussion to focus on the actual issues as above, this leads the arguments just debating whether people can actually be transgender. We can never get into actual policies because one side will just say that they're not actually trans so there's nothing to do. This sends the threads off the rails.

And for the record of others, this is the post I deleted and infracted 10 points:
And then I banned your for 1 day after you responded to that deletion and infraction with:

Maybe you should come back when you're without a cold so you can actually read the issue I have? Thanks. And yes, I would like to challenge those idiotic rules on "trans people" indeed. That's definitely the heart of the matter: what you and other ideologues believe shouldn't dictate what I can say, especially when THE EXISTENCE OF SAID THING IS WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED.

I would like to double-down that the heavy-handed "modding" above is actually not only unnecessary, but demonstrably harmful to genuine discussion. "Me and a few others decided you can't say this thing" is not a good rule. If the board wants it, obviously I can (and will) just not post here anymore. But I'd prefer we stop ideologues like you from enacting your ridiculous ruleset and ruining the board.

You are deciding for us that the debate is over and that it's decided in your favor. That's not a thing. Can we have an adult discussion where we don't ban recognizing reality because those that don't might be mentally harmed? That's not a huge ask, IMO. I don't need you to bubble-wrap every single discussion for me with your fascist approach, buddy.

Feel better.

This may become a case of "be careful what you wish for".

The central purpose of having a Politics forum on 2+2 is to serve as a containment forum. It prevents unending tireless political posts ("discussion") from infesting other 2+2 forums.

There have been several incarnations of Politics forums throughout the history of 2+2 having several different mods. These forums have had varying degrees of "success".

The worst of all these incarnations was the essentially mod-free forum which quickly became a complete cesspool of hot garbage. Eventually enough notice of the situation was brought to the attention of admin/ownership that they pivoted to a similar forum with minimal moderation. Of course, it too devolved into a similar cesspool which was eventually shuttered when that situation was brought to the attention of admin/ownership (and the larger 2+2 community).

Even the original incarnation was somewhat recently shuttered following a kerfuffle related to how certain topics were being moderated (basically a tempest in a teapot).

The current incarnation has already cycled through several mods (this is not unusual). It should not be hard to understand or appreciate that it is not easy to procure/keep mods for a Politics forum. The alternative, a mod-free Politics forum, is a non-starter as logic and history suggest.

My personal viewpoint is that people who post primarily in the 2+2 Politics forum should find another place to express their political/societal views. There are about a million of other places available to them. My guess is that 2+2 currently receives no benefit from having a "thriving" Politics forum and, taking everything into account, would be better off if the Politics forum was closed and not re-opened.

I am confident if the current 2+2 owners read a week's worth of Political forum posts they would seriously consider closing the forum (certainly some threads).

This OP is complete nonsense. Ganstaman has been a cool headed, reserved moderator in that thread that despite an unfortunate torrent of transphobic attacks against trans people has only blocked the most egregious and hateful attacks on rare occasion. I’ve been posting in the trans thread in politics for years and have no idea who this new guy complaining is, but he is completely off base in his characterization. If anything he errs on the opposite side as claimed by the OP, permitting hateful content against trans people. It’s a VERY hard needle to thread and no one will be completely happy, but gansta has done the best job of any mod in recent memory at striking a moderate tone, and really none but the most dedicate anti-trans crusader should be upset.

Yeah, maybe they'll close it all down. But maybe they can just stop the gender cult from penalizing people for discussing the reality of our species because it doesn't conform to what they'd prefer? We can only try.

uke_master,

Yes, if you think reality is "anti-trans" and anyone speaking reality needs their mouth washed out with soap, you'll agree with ganstaman. But plenty of people disagree with that, which is why I'm suggesting we don't actually need ganstaman banning us for any "anti-trans" crusade of remaining tethered to objective reality. Maybe you guys should have your own safe space away from us, rather than turning everything into a safe space? Or maybe learn to exist in a world that doesn't comport to your make-believe land? Do I need to get banned for telling someone suffering from bulimia that they aren't fat and don't need lipo or what?

You are on his side, falsely suggesting that what is being debated is actually not debatable. That's the point of the OP, which you call nonsense. There absolutely IS no evidence of a trans-identity, which is what you're calling "an unfortunate torrent of transphobic attacks against trans people", suggesting it's "egregious and hateful." Yeah, this thread isn't for you since you're one in the same. I choose not to validate a mental health disorder as something other than a mental health disorder. It's unreal that you think this stance is hateful and needing to be silenced.

i've been arguing for years to just shut down those threads

gansta clearly states here that there is a position which is true and accurate and all other positions are evil

so it's just a platform of abuse

he routinely bans people, but then allows his "allies" who subscribe to his niche views to just do literally nothing in the thread but abuse and insult other posters - but since in his mind those other posters are "hateful and wrong" then he thinks that's ok because he treats the threads like soviet re-education camps


either allow genuine free speech and discussion and moderate as usual ie no spam links/death threats or just shut down the thread because it serves no purpose at all other than as bait for him to ban and allow others to abuse people whom he ideologically disagrees with


fwiw i actually like gansta other than his moderation of that specific thread and think he's otherwise a great mod, just this is a huge ideological blind spot of his

Phresh, I haven't read many posts in "that' thread recently.

What is your medical background that allows your to definitively say what you said above? Otherwise, it is simply opinion..... of which you are entitled.

he's not entitled to that, if he posted that sentence you find above in the trans thread it would have been deleted and phresh would have received a ban

it's happened a lot, hence why phresh made this thread

This is the point. Whether it's factual or opinionated is irrelevant. It's my stance. I should be allowed to voice it. Please note that I am not advocating for the gender ideologues to NOT have the right to spew what I consider indefensibly stupid and demonstrably harmful opinions. We should both be able to present our opinions on this topic without being banned or hushed. If people believe there is evidence for bigfoot, I support any evidence to be presented. I don't support calling it cryptidphobic to suggest there is no viable evidence and banning those who agree.

If you'd like to debate the specifics, please post in the thread itself and I'm happy to engage. Oh, wait, I can't. I will get banned.

Not at all. As evidenced from years of discussion in that thread, a huge range of viewpoints that disagree with gansta (and me, although we don’t always agree either) are allowed. The very specific issue of claiming trans people are just mentally ill is not, and for good reason! Nor is the insults your post included, but that is forum wide. It is very unfortunate you seem to be such a dedicated anti-trans keyboard warrior, but your characterization of the thread you’ve just recently stepped in is completely false.

It’s always surprising to me that trans people existing causes such outrage from certain folks, and trying to get moderators removed after you step into one thread, deliver your anti-trans speech as if it is even remotely original, and it goes poorly for you.

1. What good reason is that? Because you don't like it? That's not a good reason.
2. I didn't make that claim.
3. That isn't the claim of gansta that he will ban you over. It's that "trans people aren't really trans", which is obviously an absurd bit of circular logic.
4. If this trans-identity were backed by anything tangible, you wouldn't need to ban everyone pointing out that it isn't.
5. Who is saying there aren't people in existence that say, "I am trans!" My neighbor 6' across the hall is a trans-woman. I live in Seattle. I have friends who identify as NB. You are inventing a strawman to paint me as some hateful bigot because you have no rational argument to defend your position. People believe they are the incarnation of Christ himself. You are advocating that I validate that claim or be labeled a heretic for calling it a delusion. You are the problem.

What you are advocating is that you don't need to prove your beliefs that aren't actually backed by anything valid. Not only that, but anybody who doesn't drink the Flavor Aid must be silenced. This is the issue. Again, you aren't going to understand since you're a gender cultist like ganstaman.

not to mention that all they do is insult people and of course never get banned because gansta views them as allies

Silence! They're on the right side of history. You're obviously just a bigot with hateful views. Sometimes it's okay to burn the witches.

How much did gangster pay you to post this?

I wonder how many trans-identifying folkx just spontaneously combusted due to this vitriolic discussion taking place.

Let me help you.

Your insistence on posting anti-trans bigotry is not going to be our problem. You can learn the rules or you can gtfo.

Gangstaman has been INFINITELY patient with you guys. You don’t deserve him.

I’ve banned Phresh for a week for posting more bigotry in the trans thread, intentionally misgendering people, and posting hateful cartoons.

Feel free to lock this thread. There is nothing here that needs to be discussed, and gangstaman has nothing he needs to defend himself from.

And to originalgangster, we are aware you are a formerly banned poster on a new account.

Keep this up and I will one touch ban and wipe your posts. I am very serious. It’s enough.

Keep what up? Have I called anyone foul names? No. Not even after being repeatedly told “F you”, which you appropriately intervened in. Have I insulted anyone? No.

this is a perfect example of why we should just close the trans thread and never re-open it

The thread in question has to do with trans involvement in sports, primarily men dominating women’s athletics. Perhaps you could allow a separate thread in which people can debate whether or not trans is a mental illness, social contagion, etc. There are many legitimate theories regarding this and I think a lot of frustration people have is the inability to explore these things.

Sadly that isn’t a bad idea.

Absolutely unequivocally the answer is NO.

Go elsewhere if that’s what you want to post about. It is not welcome here.

How progressive of you.