Support of a TERF should indicate /u/Hal is not fit to moderate /f/trans [Resolved - User left]

Submitted by glitter_v0id in mediation (edited by a moderator )

This is entirely unacceptable.

I raised the point in the spam chatroom after the kretek thread went up that we, as a community (not just Raddle) are far too tolerant of transphobic bigotry when compared to other forms of bigotry in our communities.

we allow them to stay, we try to educate them, well beyond the point at which they have indicated they cannot or will not accept any change to their worldview.

After a repeated pattern of abuse from the user about to be banned, /u/Hal is still arguing that they should be "allowed" to stay because

I think they've been rather civil and have been contributing to discussions

Frankly, that doesn't matter and the fact that he thinks it does suggests some serious level of either sincerely believed bullshit or (more likely) internalized bullshit.

I am not suggesting a user ban (nor would I support it at this juncture) nor am I suggesting he should be removed as mod from all of his forums (though I wouldn't object if others did) but he is saying he doesn't believe espousing terfisms makes a person inherently dangerous and that isn't someone I feel safe representing /f/trans.


Just to clarify, I wouldn't have allowed that rhetoric on f/trans.

leaves open the interpretation you would allow it elsewhere. I'm kinda pissed, but this does not bode well.



The submission is locked. You cannot post new comments.

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Since it's been four hours I'm going to say something to continue this conversation.

I think a lot of us are so weighed down by trans issues, since a lot of us are trans, that it's quite hard for us to engage, in various ways.

It's from this perspective, along with a general reluctance to ban people who present themselves as trying to learn and heal (which I'm not actually sure about in the case of u/kretek in light of the nonsense said about postmodernism in relation to transness, and their super-convenient dodgy definition of 'transphobe'), that I understand u/Hal's reluctance to do a global ban.

I also think that the global ban of u/kretek was completely the appropriate thing to do, and that we all should as a standard be far more clear and firm on this topic than we have been. There were a handful of oversights and I agree that we have been too tolerant, because these conversations and the ban should have been had at least 26 days ago, after another bout of terfing that followed a forum ban for terfing.

So finally I do agree with u/glitter_v0id that u/Hal is (at least at the moment) acting with too much leniency towards this issue, and that it reflects a real problem for his moderation of f/trans. I think that there was only one way to come down on this issue after having checked out u/kretek's post/ban history.


Tequila_Wolf wrote

I should probably add also that although I differ in opinion here to u/Hal I don't expect to be a perfect mod and there may well be times that I or other moderators get things wrong. I'm sure there's lots for me and other mods on f/trans to learn about being good curators of the space. I'm not sure yet what kind of activities make for a good or bad moderator, and it may be that many more of us are unfit to be mods if u/Hal is.

As things stand we're still a small enough community that we're able to manage individual problems as they arise, and would be able to work things out with a troublesome mod. I think there's the very important task of being serious about providing the best possible space for trans people, while recognising that we're human and trying to do this in good faith when we take on mod work.

So a meaningful part of this discussion would be asking what makes someone a good mod and what we expect of mods.


glitter_v0id OP wrote

this is a really good point, and I'm going to have to think about it before giving a real response.

and probably cool off some, still.


glitter_v0id OP wrote

oki, so i'm less blind angry, but also don't have power rn (yay, climate change!) so while this isn't intentionally a hit and run, it may end up being one when the library kicks me out because writing a book off my phone usually ends with something being incoherent.

Having calmed down, if he had bothered to respond to this thread I would probably redact my initial commentary. He hasn't. I really hope there's a reason and my being pissed didn't just drive him off the site (aside - yes, i need to work on my anger. yes, i am working on my anger. i'm sorry i hurt you.)

For mod criteria, honestly I think holding beliefs that are a direct conflict of interest to the forum you're moderating is the kind of general standard. Again, for moderation. On less day to day "easy to set on fire" examples it would be ridiculous for someone who's general stance on our future is "fully automated space gay communism" (or less meme-y versions thereof) to moderate a primitivism forum. Getting more into firey territory I wouldn't step up to mod a vegan forum because every attempt I've made into veganism has turned into an eating disorder. not so much a belief but an action that's inherently contradictory to safe and fair moderation of a forum. a trans person who thinks nonbinary people either shouldn't transition, or that they can only call themselves trans if they want a fully binary transition shouldn't moderate a trans forum. a biphobic gay person has no place moderating a queer forum. someone who doesn't believe in colorism shouldn't moderate a poc forum (or a white person, but i think that's a given in this context)

supporting giving terfs a platform is honestly an extreme example of that idea given their tendency to very actively support in harming trans femmes.


ziq wrote

Can Hal respond? You said you've spoken to kretek privately and that is what is informing your position?


glitter_v0id OP wrote (edited )

I posted here because I /want/ hal to respond.

I also never claimed that. the user has been reported, clearly repeatedly, for the same issue, and shows absolutely no sign of changing as of 2 days ago and should have been banned on TOS violations awhile ago without it needing a community vote to remove bigots.

I'll reiterate I understand why that did not happen and can be sympathetic to that to a degree but enough is enough and terf sympathies in an explicitly trans space is unsafe for eveyone.


ziq wrote

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Hal and asking then to respond so mediation can begin.


glitter_v0id OP wrote

so, i am at my core an angry person and recently got into a fight with my roomate about republicans. i'm gonna set some cards on the table in the interest of transparency and hopefully not becoming a flamewar / pure callout with someone who is a member of the same communities, and may go to bed soon (its after midnight here)

  1. I'm going into this in good faith that you're not some kind of terf mole posing as a trans person.
  2. i have made the assumption you're a binary trans man.
  3. i'm afab, nonbinary but generally seen as masc at a glance if i'm not in a dress. from my interactions within the trans community both being seen as binary and recognized as not the understanding I've gotten is that is not a reason to avoid shutting down radfems and terfs but instead a reason to continue doing so because they might bother listening to someone they view as a man. (this might be a little justify-y I am honestly unsure?)
  4. I'm not sure if I should have made the comparison I did in my original response. I definitely made it out of anger rather than thought, and if someone is telling me that is unfair or bigoted/racist in some way i will strike it here.