You Might Be Here From ONTD Asking, "What happened?"
The short story: blocking people for transphobic and transmisogynistic comments is worse than people making those comments in the first place.
The longer story is a little more complicated, as these things go on the internet.
*For the purposes of this post, I will be paraphrasing and not sharing the content of the private messages I received*
Five days ago, I put some users on my block list for having a consistent history of transmisogynistic comments. Not just one-off instances, but a pattern of behavior that hadn't resulted in them being banned yet, including from a few men, and I'll get to those comments in a moment. I'd also put two users on there before all this for having unpleasant interactions with them (at first I thought blocking just stopped them from responding to your comments, not your posts entirely), which is worth mentioning, but they aren't really comparable; as with any online community, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and bad people are going to exist everywhere, but there is a unique strain of transmisogyny that's been allowed to perpetuate on ONTD where you can essentially call trans women predatory monsters, trans men as brainwashed women eager to escape oppression, and non-binary people as teenagers with purple hair streaks as long as you dress it up in some rhetoric without getting much blowback. If you're eager to deny this completely, you're probably part of the problem. But let's get into it.
Afterwards, I wrote the html for this post. For once I wanted a trans post to not be a complete shit show, and I felt that the users I blocked had more than warranted further attention from the mods. I also have to state that the new rules and leadership that have been active since brenden finally left have been effective in stopping the most extreme of the transmisogynist trolls (fka of course, but also the person with the anna wintour icon, several other users whose sad existence merited no other purpose then to come into trans posts and trans posts alone to debate their favorite subject; shitting on trans people... and there was nuclearseasonz too lol). But transphobia is still allowed if, as I said, you dress up what you're saying in a little rhetoric.
Zyuranger approached me later that day with complaints from three users for not being able to comment in my posts, including the Trump Admin post, writing that three users messaged him tonight about how they can't comment in my posts because I blocked them. Because I'm not a mod, I shouldn't be blocking people from posts, and he implored me to undo the bans.
I replied right off the bat,
"Every person that I've banned I have reported to you and other mods because they've been making transmisogynistic comments for months, including but not limited to: saying that trans people should be removed from the LGBTQ community [...] that trans women are just as violent as cis men (several users have said and agreed with those comments), that trans women are entitled, that trans women and trans womanhood aren't even "valid" or a thing at all [...] that trans men are just brainwashed women who want to escape oppression, that cis women on here who call them out on their comments actually hate women and thus themselves and don't care about themselves or anyone else, that gender identity theory and self-identification is bullshit, that trans people are all fake and are just walking gender stereotypes, that gay trans people don't exist at all, that misgendering trans women is a joke and not at all violence in any way, even laughing at those jokes, and many other things.
None of those claims are exaggerations. They are all real, and they're all comments that I've reported to you and other mods, from people of all genders and sexualities, and as as I can visibly see as a regular user, nothing has been done about them. Only the most extreme cases have been removed; and do the ones above not sound extreme at all just the same? If any of those sound far-fetched, I can send any given comment to you, if you've already lost a few of them from the last message I last sent."
I felt it was important to state my intentions right away; these weren't bans done out of personal irritation, though there certainly was that, but because I felt all those users had repeatedly broken the rules against discriminatory comments, and even though blocking people is against the rules and can result in posting privileges being revoked, that's the issue that should naturally take precedent if you have any semblance of priorities. It was... a gamble, to say the least.
For the last several months, I've gone through some of the trans wank posts days after they happened and sent discriminatory comments to report to Zyuranger and toxic_illusion (a couple times for the former, mostly for the latter), starting shortly before the new rules were instated up until about a month ago. The messages were about once a month on average IIRC, sometimes one or two more if there was follow up after the initial one. I usually waited until a couple posts were done with, since this is all on my free time and it was more convenient for the mods anyway to have everything bundled together. This worked out pretty well for a while since the worst of the trolls were finally banned, or at least received warnings, as far as I know. Zyuranger and toxic_illusion were often friendly and accomodating when I messaged them, and they've personally faced a lot of backlash for taking actions against the worst of these comments.
I went on to say, "I have removed them from my activity on here because they've demonstrated for months on end, recenty, not just one off instances or even something they learned from and recognized they were wrong for, or something a year or longer ago, that they don't deserve my time and energy.
Moreover, that standard of ONTD is under the section "NEED TO REPORT SOMEONE?" which I have done multiple times, and that option has been exhausted. It has not worked."
Again for context: the T should be dropped from LGBTQ, gender identity is bullshit, trans women are as violent as cis men, trans women are comparable to mens's right activists and love palying oppression olympics, gay trans people don't exist, and more were the comments I was talking about. That last part is especially something, because of how much shit gay trans guys face, and how many non-binary and trans lesbians make up lesbian communities (and before you jump in - no, I don't think there's an inherent issue with not being attracted to trans people, and people can be homophobic when talking insisting there fundamentally is [excluding non-binary/genderqueer people, because there's no set look or anything to what that means]). In part of the message, I said,
"I'm interested in knowing; how exactly is my personal banning of these select individuals not completely warranted at this point? How is this not plain and simple bigotry that the mod leadership as a whole hasn't done enough about? Because all the types of comments I listed above are completely real. I can send them if there's an external criteria that needs to be met, if there's a metric to this personal choice that can be judged. And if someone bans another user for those said comments, in what way do you make a distinction between a warranted choice as a user and "censorship" from one person in a larger community; If a trans user banned someone for consistently making transphobic comments against them, a gay person against homophobic comments, or anyone else as a measure of security and controlling their emotional well-being, how can that simply be considered "censoring"?"
Afterwards, I sent my first response to Zyuranger. Soon after, I got a response detailing that most of the users I mentioned had already faced warnings, and that just because regular users couldn't see it didn't mean that the mods weren't doing anything. The mods had gotten a lot of flack, and one was even threatened. However, this was the entire point I had already about; most of these users as far as I was aware had warnings for transphobia and transmisogyny already, which is one of the reasons why I blocked them. I knew that some users had been warned and that the worst of them had been banned. Furthermore, I had only spoken to Zyuranger about these comments once, so it was very possible that he hadn't seen at least some of the ones I had previously reported elsewhere or didn't remember them; hence the "I can send" those comments and demonstrate the history of discriminatory comments I was talking about, leading to my decision, which as I see it, is the more important rule in this situation.
Zyuranger also mentioned some users were banned after a recent trans topic post. Not letting users comment in posts also prevents them from being able to provide any substantial evidence of their behavior that could get them repreimanded. At the end of the message, Zyuranger said I related my stance, but that as the site's maintainer, I had to follow his request or else my posting privileges would be revoked.
Again, the idea of evidence was something I talked about; for most of the users I blocked, there was already enough evidence to take further action, especially, again, if he hadn't seen all of the reported comments, which I offered to show him based on my past messages to mods. I replied that I felt he was avoiding the point of what I was getting at, and said,
"And when I say I’ve reported comments, I MEAN comments: I’m not talking about special circumstances to ban someone outright because one comment that's messy - although as far as I’m concerned, saying trans people should be kicked out of the LGBTQ community, calling trans women as violent as cis men and laughing at blatantly misgendering trans people should absolutely be one offense bans" I went on to say that if he has any inquiries about those comments, "Just ask me. If you think my banning them is worthy of punishment, you should want to know about them too."
I also went on to say that my posting privileges could be revoked, which I knew was a risk, "but most users like the ones I've mentioned are still going to have them just because they don’t do what is, to be quite honest, a pretty arbitrary rule based around banning people, because I’ve pretty clearly described not only why it’s warranted for me on a personal level, but why lots of other users have felt the same about trans posts and even avoided for quite a while now, and why I have no political patience or emotional energy left to tolerate people shitting on trans people under the guise of intellectualism the same way every single time, especially given everything that’s happening."
I said I was not going to unblock those users with the way things currently stand, and I also said, "I am willing to link to the comments, as in more than one for most of them and often at least three, that demonstrate exactly what I’m talking about, and speak further about it. Because maybe the rules aren’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing - and if you think that me taking a step to avoid another mess that me and other users would eventually have to report because it wasn’t preemptively stopped, only for mods to have to comb through the post anyway [...] is somehow worth pulling posting priviliges from while these other users don’t face similar or worse consequences for their much worse actions, then maybe there needs to be a reflection of and change in priorities that show what a significant number of users have still been saying for some time now when they talk about how the new rules haven’t been enough."
At the end I asked him to consider what I said and why I would risk being unable to make posts, and if he said which users sent the complaints, I could likely demonstrate everything that I was talking about. I should also add that when I say new rules, I also mean the mod's understanding of the rules, which is effectively the same thing in practice but an important distinction, because mods adhere to the rules, but mods are not monolithic.
Anyone who's ever run or played some role in running an online community before will know how difficult it is when you have a lot of people screaming and demanding your attention for every little thing, especially in your day to day life and how much time it can suck away, but that in the end, it's usually worth it, or something yada yada, because you enjoy going back to that community for some reason, and wouldn't have taken on that role if you didn't. But what's also more important is that the results of your actions in making a comm a safe place for everyone matters above all else and how you feel about what you're doing.
The mods have done a good job taking care of the worst users and warning others in spite of backlash, but that isn't necessarily the end of the road, even if people feels it's mostly done; especially since just about everyone making comments about, responding, reporting, and making rules about transphobic comments are almost completely cis people. Most trans or intersex users that were here have been driven away, by time and growing out of it or by the unique vein of transmisogyny on ONTD, and everyone else is still left here having to talk about how to deal with what constitutes discrimation and what constitutes respectful "debate" about transgender-related issues, which I use loosely, because that's how some of these comments are protected, despite the history of some users.
It's also important to note that one of the things I've gotten out of my interactions with mods early on about these comments is that it can often feel like an uphill battle, and that mods have to make a fuss about demonstrating a history of discriminatory comments from a user; just trying to report one doesn't necessairly mean the user will be talked to or warned, not if you can't demonstrate the... history, lets say, of where the user is coming from. Another thing I also got is that users who've received warnings for transphobic comments sometimes dressed up their commentary in other rhetoric, which made it difficult to take action on when reporting. These are critical elements to talking about rules, and how mods interpret them, especially, again, as a bunch of cis people who have problems as an online community talking about trans people, and especially women.
I received two more messages from Zyuranger, both short, and entirely ignoring everything that I talked about in my message except for the "I'm sorry, but no," part.
He said that I was not a mod, and that I did not get to choose who comments or not in the community, and that is all.
This wasn't only dismissing what I was talking about, or not acknowledging my repeated offer to demonstrate that the users who sent him the complaints have a history of discriminatory comments (that he likely hasn't seen entirely), but was detracting from the point when I expressed from the beginning, this was a personal choice I made because the rules haven't been effective enough, "and as as I can visibly see as a regular user, nothing has been done about them." That isn't to say Zyuranger was wrong in that statement; blocking people is against the rules that can result in not being able to make posts, which I knew was a risk. But like I just said in my last message, "and if you think that me taking a step to avoid another mess that me and other users would eventually have to report because it wasn’t preemptively stopped, only for mods to have to comb through the post anyway [...] is somehow worth pulling posting priviliges from while these other users don’t face similar or worse consequences [...] then maybe there needs to be a reflection of and change in priorities that show what a significant number of users have still been saying for some time now when they talk about how the new rules haven’t been enough." There were two things going on here, not just one; and neither were simple issues. That was not "all" there was to the situation. This was not a flippant choice against users who hadn't done anything wrong.
I said that he was avoiding what I was talking about, which was made up of two main points, which you can identify by now; that I blocked these users for having a history of these comments, many of whom have or have probably received warnings, and also that I could probably demonstrate that for the people who sent Zyuranger the complaints in the first place. If my blocking people was against the rules, any mod should also want to see the comments I was talking about, and judge whether or not they are against the rules or not. I also said,
"You already said yourself you spoke to users about this [...] so you should know there's probably MORE than just that already out there."
This was relevant to reiterate because the mods are aware of the kind of comments I was referring to, even without me specifically describing them in the first sentence of my first message, but that they still might not have seen all of them, because they aren't a single hive mind with a neural processor, or sometimes people just forget, or don't have enough energy to always deal with them.
Some time passed, and later that day when I was free to check, I still hadn't received a response. I wrote another message to Zyu restating the same points I've already made in paraphrased form, including,
"I didn't just do it for the heck of it - since you already know and have spoken to some of these people for offenses like [...] you should also be aware that there's probably more to their history of comments, since those signify a deeply-ingrained and hateful belief that to regular users like myself hasn't faced enough visible action. Waiting for another terrible wank post to finally collect "substantial evidence" as you said is unnecessary for some users here because there's already more than enough from recent months, and because of it, most users don't want any posts on the topic at all, lest they have to avoid them period.
But I don't know who you're specifically referring to, despite you saying you relayed the contents of what I said, and I would like to know so I can show you what I mean."
Soon after, I received a response, the second and last of the short messages.
He said I thought I was a moderator when I was not. He asked me politely to undo the blocks, and I didn't do that. I defied a mod's request several times, and that was why I could no longer post.
This again, had nothing to do with what I said, and distinctly went against what I was talking about before about how I was aware I was not a mod (and several times? I said no once, with a desire to talk further about it, and he'd only sent one response since, not requesting anything). I was aware I couldn't make posts and didn't say anything about that. (After I wrote my first response to Zyu overnight and before I got a response, I wrote the HTML for a followup to the Trump Admin post and went to bed; I posted it quickly in the queue later, in the morning when I could, before I had time to write my second response, and figured it wouldn't get posted - but like I said, I also didn't mention it in any of my messages). Me being able to make posts wasn't the issue at hand; everything else that I said was completely ignored, including my offer to show him the reported comments I described right off the bat in the first message. Afterwards, I wrote another response, but was unable to send it because Zyuranger had changed the privacy settings, and later I realized he'd blocked me entirely.
I was still able to comment in posts generally though, which I did, even though I couldn't make posts themselves, but the issue was still unresolved, and I didn't want it to be. I couldn't speak to Zyuranger after that and haven't been able to since. Later that night, I sent toxic_illusion a message, summarizing what happened with Zyuranger in much shorter terms, also talking about the kinds of discriminatory comments that I'd previously reported, and how they warrant attention like me blocking people for them should also.
"I realize this doesn't have anything to do with your job as a mod, and I'm not really sure what else I'm writing this message for but maybe, advice, or anything else, because I'm at a loss for whether it's worth dealing with this comm anymore." I expressed frustration at not being able to respond to Zyuranger, and that I felt he was ignoring my point about the users with transmisogynist comments, even though he knew about at least some of the comments I was talking about, and I offered to demonstrate what I was talking about to him. At the end of the message I expressed I knew toxic_illusion may disagree with me for blocking people, particularly in her role as a mod, but that I was grateful for what she'd done for the comm, and for taking the time to read the message and speak to me.
After I was able to check the next day, I saw her response.
toxic_illusion said that they've dealth with the transphobia as best we can in this community, but that gender critical commentary is still allowed regardless of how much we agree with it or not. She also said she will not silence women or their opinions. If it's not breaking the rules, it would be allowed.
This is what I meant before when I talked about any given mod's interpretaton of the rules in an online community... and now I have to rewind for a moment.
-
About a month ago, during the last round of messages I sent to toxic_illusion about reported comments, I repeated all the same sentiments I did at the beginning of this entry and in my first entry to Zyuranger, summarizing the issue with the comments that I linked to:
"to recap:
1) trans women are sexual predators like cis men bc "males are the same" according to notorious transphobic users here. trans women never transition, and if they do it doesn't make a difference.
2) trans women only exist because they embody gender stereotypes, rather than sometimes using or being adjacent to stereotypes in femininity to explore their gender identity, because above all else people hate transfeminine people and women.
3) trans women are using trans men, who are just brainwashed women only identifying as men to escape oppression, in order to get what they want.
4) all clueless and sexist rhetoric from the occasional trans person and all cis people ever are the responsibility of trans women and a sign that gender identity is nonsense the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater.
5) trans women uphold the gender binary even though 50% of trans women attempt suicide before age 25. they benefit from it and aren't oppressed, and they're only oppressed because they like embodying feminine stereotypes." *reffering to trans women of color
After I said thanks again, and hoped she had a good weekend, because mods are people. Usually when I sent comments to mods, I included a sentence or two next to it describing what the problem was, especially since as I'd learned before one comment wasn't always enough, even on its own; it had to have context and be applied to how it broke the rules. I was often very specific in the comments I reported (if also, clearly, a little annoyed too), which part of them if anything more specific, and why I felt they were discriminatory. I sent one more followup because I realized I had a couple threads I forgot to include in the message. Anyone who's read any of my posts on ONTD will know I am very specific and try to include all the relevant information I can for users to glean.
I received the response that she'd gone through and dealt with the users who deserved it, but that the rules state that discourse is allowed and people and women were allowed to express their gender critical views.
toxic_illusion did not specifiy what kinds of or specific comments she felt were not breaking the rules, especially since I was very specific in my message shown above. I responded, thanking her for taking action, but also said,
"... like i listed, "trans lesbians are straight men", "trans women are just as violent as cis men", "gay trans people don't exist", "trans men are just women who want to escape oppression", "gender identity isn't real", "trans racial people are just like trans people", "trans people enforce the gender binary", comparing trans women to MRAs, saying trans people participate in oppression olympics [...] are not simply gender critical views."
Even if they are gender critical views or based in them, they aren't just that, and that doesn't make them correct; they're pretty clearly transphobia dressed up in intellectual rhetoric on here, especially given the history of the users that they come from, which was included in that round of messages. I did not receive a response to that message, which at the time, I didn't think was a big deal, because mods are people and people are busy. Looking back, I should have seen that this would be an issue later on in how rules are different from interpretations of the rules by the people who enforce them. It was a disagreement, but disagreements can have wider consequences given the dynamic between a regular user and mods in online communities.
-
Back to present day, toxic_illusion mentioned gender critical views without specifying what exactly she meant. In the first message I sent to toxic_illusion that prompted this response, I included in my paraphrasing, "I made two points; that I could show these reported comments I was talking about (among them: that trans people should be kicked out of the lgbtq community, that trans women are as violent as cis men, and that trans gay people don't exist) and that they weren't just one-off offenses," so I was, again, very specific again about the comments I was talking about, which I'd also described in previous messages a month ago, and not using generalizations or being vague. toxic_illusion also mentioned I was being unfair in saying that Zyuranger hasn't done a good job in moderating this community. I didn't say he wasn't doing a good job, since this is just one subject in an entire online community, I said that the rules haven't been as effective as they should be, and that ignoring the comments I was talking about was "coddling" transmisogynists in that sense - which is why I decided to block them in the first place.
In my response, I reiterated my specificity and asked toxic_illusion to be specific,
"What part of the comments I mentioned, including trans people being violent, being walking talking stereotypes, how they should be kicked out of the lgbtq community, and how gay trans people don’t exist at all is merely gender critical commentary? That’s the stuff I’m talking about [...] It’s how that kind of stuff is allowed because it isn’t considered “breaking the rules”. That’s hateful speech and blatant transphobia. How exactly is it not? You and Zyu both know those aren’t one off instanced for some users, they’re deeply ingrained beliefs that have been allowed to foster on this website"
I also specified that I wasn't freely blocking anyone who'd ever expressed a thought relating to being gender critical, because having views similar to being gender critical doesn't mean you're transphobic, but rather users with specific histories of comments, many of whom have received warnings. Near the end of toxic_illusion's message, she said I don't get to block users because I didn't want to deal with shitty comments. That's being on the internet.
toxic_illusioned ended the message with insisting I unblock the users. As a mod, that's the correct thing to say, because blocking is against the rules and can result in not being able to make posts - but it's also ignoring everything that I said to both Zyuranger and toxic_illusion (though, as I would find out, my conversation with Zyuranger was likely not accurately paraphrased to other parties), not in concluding that blocking was against the rules, but in everything else that I was talking about. Again, I offered to demonstrate to both Zyuranger and toxic_illusion the comments I described - especially since they probably don't remember or haven't seen all of them - but that was never acknowledged in any message I received.
I continued,
"I don’t know how it got the point where you think the comments I’m talking about are just gender critical views (they aren’t, they’re discriminatory comments), how that would be considered “silencing”, or why you would insinuate any of these things about me. Trans women (and trans men, when concern trolling) and their lives and experiences are constantly silenced, dissected, and put under a microscope for the purposes of cis users here to talk about how ugly, male, violent and entitled they are - how is that not actual, real life effective silencing of women? Most of all, not wanting to deal with “shitty comments”? Is the entire point of reporting them, as users are instructed to do by the rules, not that mods want help in stopping shitty, discriminatory comments? These aren’t just shitty comments. If a trans user reported then to you (which, they’ve all been driven away), would you tell them that’s just part of being on the internet? Even though I knew you would disagree with my decision and not budge or whatever as a mod, I thought you might understand the kind of rhetoric I was talking about"
I ended my response and second message with,
"It’s not just all that; it’s that I can’t even respond to Zyu now at all. In the last message he sent, he said something about how I wasn’t able to make posts, which I knew and had nothing to do with what I was talking about, because he wasn’t answering any of the points I’ve made here in less detail. How am I supposed to deal with it if I can’t communicate with him, or how is any user who’s unhappy with how transphobia has been dealt with here (because there are a lot of people, including many women, and you know that) if a mod can cut off access because they can just do that? Because that’s what I said in my first message to you."
A brief amount of time passed. I didn't receive a response or answer to any of my questions.
I went into a post to make a comment and saw that I'd been banned.
I sent another message to toxic_illusion, because I doubted I was going to get a response to my second, saying that I wasn't given any warning and didn't understand what the grounds for the banning was, including,
"I sent a response trying to talk to you about this. Revoking posting privileges, yes, which I understood.
What's going on?"
From there on out, I only received two more messages from toxic_illusion, none of which were any responses to what I was talking about, or to any of the questions I raised about what constituted discriminatory comments, how the specific ones I've mentioned in this entry about four times were not, or how I was supposed to resolve with Zyuranger when I was unable to speak with him.
toxic_illusion answered, I was told by Zyuranger to remove the blocks and I didn't.
But as Zyuranger stated, that resulted in not being able to make posts; neither Zyuranger nor the rules refer to banning people entirely or further action beyond revoking posting privileges. Not only that, I was not warned by toxic_illusion or anyone.
I started off describing that I stated to Zyuranger I was willing to show him the comments I blocked people for to see if they broke the rules; I never stated I wasn't ever going to take away the blocks, "I am willing to link to the comments, as in more than one for most of them and often at least three, that demonstrate exactly what I’m talking about, and speak further about it." I went on to say that he might not have seen the comments I was talking about, which could also constitute breaking the rules, which was something he ignored and then made it unable for me to speak to him. I continued,
"I just sent a message to you expanding upon what I said. What exactly from any of that warranted banning?
I said we disagreed on what comments consitutute discrimination, but that I wasn't given any warning at all for being banned. "In Zyu's last message to me, like I just said to you, he said my posting privileges were removed, which I understood. Nothing about further action.
What's going on?"
toxic_illusion replied with saying I didn't get to make the rules.
This was so far off of the point of the point this entire situation stemmed from I was taken aback. No, I don't get to make the rules; but the rules state that transphobic comments are against them, and what we (and other users on here) disagree over is what exactly that means. What exactly is the line between discrimination and not? The easiest predictor, of course, is unrecognized past behavior from whatever user you're talking about, which I offered to demonstrate, but that's not all - going back to the critical elements of mods enforcing rules as they interpret them, how do you decide what makes a comm safe, what should be allowed even if you disagree with it, and what to do about bigotry if it's dressed up in rhetoric? What happens when mods have different interpretations of breaking this rule? And to press the question again - what about the specific kinds of comments I've been describing the entire time were not breaking the rules? To which I never got an answer.
Across my messages, I was always very specific in what the reported comments were and why they were bad, and how they made up the unique vein of transphobia and transmisogyny that's still present on ONTD. I was very specific in these messages to Zyuranger and toxic_illusion because I didn't want there to be any misinterpretations (which may have happened anyway, inevitably).
On a more personal note, I haven't ever received a warning or a three strike anything on this website. I clearly had problems with the comm, and we're all here to complain sometimes, but they mostly weren't anything I felt couldn't be improved or were unique problems compared to other websites, until now anyway, and I enjoyed going on there most of the time or else I wouldn't have gone back there and contributed posts and my own interests and talk with other people. Even the worst of the trolls received warnings before being banned - how long did it take for nuclearseasonz or fka to get banned? The person with the anna wintour icon went on for post after post misgendering trans women before it happened. One user I recall had to talk about trans women getting their dicks cut off before they were finally banned. And tbh, there are... other people still left who've skated by for a while, and this isn't even getting to the real point; that with all those discriminatory comments I blocked people for, the blocking was somehow worse, and warranted this action. In addition, challenging cis mods on what they consider transphobic, and what transmisogyny they're willing to let slide, unable to provide an explanation as to why, even when faced with very specific examples.
It would've been one thing if this was warned in statements from the mods or in the rules, but it wasn't, I was in the middle of having an exchange with another mod who hadn't even been the one I was initially talking to about this problem. And I suspect a lot of people are going to cite, "it's the rules" and that the mods acted correctly. Thank you for your input. Yes, blocking people is against the rules - but I think I've clarified by now there's more going on here then just rules. Rules can all interpreted by mods in any online community differently, even when they come to an agreement at some point, and rules can adapt to whatever suits a community best, or what doesn't, or some mix of the two. And all the mods are cis, and so are most of the users.
In my previous messages, that's what I asked both Zyuranger and then toxic_illusion; how are these comments not discriminatory? Do you know about all of them? Because I've reported them before, and so have other users, and you might not have seen them. How do you draw a line between which rules are more important? Both Zyuranger and toxic_illusion reacted the same way; they reiterated one set of rules over the other and wouldn't acknowledge most of what I was talking about, as much as they've been a big help with the worst users and trolls on here. It isn't about individual mods doing a good job or not, it's about the collective effect that mods have when dealing with discrimination; but even then, if there's no clear interpretation of what constitutes that and not, there's always going to be room for the specific kinds of comments I've been talking about this entire time, which I feel are clearly discriminatory.
This is something I said from the beginning.
"Because maybe the rules aren’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing - and if you think that me taking a step to avoid another mess that me and other users would eventually have to report because it wasn’t preemptively stopped, only for mods to have to comb through the post anyway [...] is somehow worth pulling posting priviliges from while these other users don’t face similar or worse consequences for their much worse actions, then maybe there needs to be a reflection of and change in priorities that show what a significant number of users have still been saying for some time now when they talk about how the new rules haven’t been enough."
I reached out to toxic a few more times, offering to apologize for overstepping the rules and undo the blocks that night and the next day. I also tried reaching out to ms_melissa and blacktinbox, though at this point, I haven't received any responses, and I suspect that I won't. Either because I probably sounded frantic, or because they've drawn conclusions from another mod paraphrasing what I said, which is fair, it doesn't have anything to do with them (that's another thing about being a mod - you're not always in the loop and don't have time to be), and they might disagree with me anyway.
At first I was upset when I was banned - anything that's part of your daily or weekly ritual being taken away can feel weird at first, even distressing, and I wanted to come back and argued that this was a dispraportionate response from the mods (which, it was) even if I couldn't make posts. But then I realized that if this is really the best that mods can do against the transphobia and transmisogyny on here, if the kinds of comments I described can just be protected under the guise of debate, I'm better off spending my time elsewhere. There's no use worrying about it anymore, and I feel better not having to do so. The reaction that I got really illustrated to me the priorities some of you have. Sometimes rules are not the most important thing, and some rules should be more important then others. Sometimes you have to interrogate what you consider transphobic and ask yourself what that says about you. Things aren't always supposed to be clear-cut and easy, and warrant deeper reflection and a better response than what happened here.
I suspect a lot of people are going to disagree with how I went about this, even if they sympathize with the situation or agree that transphobia is still an issue on ONTD, which is fine. Not exactly a great strategy, but one I wanted to take a risk for - and even when I got a chance to make my points, they were dismissed. I certainly let my frustration and emotions get the better of me a few times, even though I was always specific in my complaints and stated several times the mods have otherwise done a good job, even if I and other users feel some things need to change. Or maybe you're just here for the drama, which I respect.
But I suspect a lot of people are going to disagree with me entirely because you really do believe trans women are as violent as cis men, that laughing at misgendered trans women is funny, that gay trans people don't exist and are delusional and predatory, that trans people should be removed from the LGBTQ community, that gender identity theory is bullshit, that trans people are nothing more than walking talking stereotypes, that trans women are really your enemies because of intracommunity disputes or others and are comparable to men's right activists, that men and women aren't terms with room for both cis and trans people, or any combination of the above, not in a case of simply ignorance and not understanding, because that's not what I'm talking about, but from a deeper place of disgust and hatred - in which case, go figure. You're an asshole.
The longer story is a little more complicated, as these things go on the internet.
*For the purposes of this post, I will be paraphrasing and not sharing the content of the private messages I received*
Five days ago, I put some users on my block list for having a consistent history of transmisogynistic comments. Not just one-off instances, but a pattern of behavior that hadn't resulted in them being banned yet, including from a few men, and I'll get to those comments in a moment. I'd also put two users on there before all this for having unpleasant interactions with them (at first I thought blocking just stopped them from responding to your comments, not your posts entirely), which is worth mentioning, but they aren't really comparable; as with any online community, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and bad people are going to exist everywhere, but there is a unique strain of transmisogyny that's been allowed to perpetuate on ONTD where you can essentially call trans women predatory monsters, trans men as brainwashed women eager to escape oppression, and non-binary people as teenagers with purple hair streaks as long as you dress it up in some rhetoric without getting much blowback. If you're eager to deny this completely, you're probably part of the problem. But let's get into it.
Afterwards, I wrote the html for this post. For once I wanted a trans post to not be a complete shit show, and I felt that the users I blocked had more than warranted further attention from the mods. I also have to state that the new rules and leadership that have been active since brenden finally left have been effective in stopping the most extreme of the transmisogynist trolls (fka of course, but also the person with the anna wintour icon, several other users whose sad existence merited no other purpose then to come into trans posts and trans posts alone to debate their favorite subject; shitting on trans people... and there was nuclearseasonz too lol). But transphobia is still allowed if, as I said, you dress up what you're saying in a little rhetoric.
Zyuranger approached me later that day with complaints from three users for not being able to comment in my posts, including the Trump Admin post, writing that three users messaged him tonight about how they can't comment in my posts because I blocked them. Because I'm not a mod, I shouldn't be blocking people from posts, and he implored me to undo the bans.
I replied right off the bat,
"Every person that I've banned I have reported to you and other mods because they've been making transmisogynistic comments for months, including but not limited to: saying that trans people should be removed from the LGBTQ community [...] that trans women are just as violent as cis men (several users have said and agreed with those comments), that trans women are entitled, that trans women and trans womanhood aren't even "valid" or a thing at all [...] that trans men are just brainwashed women who want to escape oppression, that cis women on here who call them out on their comments actually hate women and thus themselves and don't care about themselves or anyone else, that gender identity theory and self-identification is bullshit, that trans people are all fake and are just walking gender stereotypes, that gay trans people don't exist at all, that misgendering trans women is a joke and not at all violence in any way, even laughing at those jokes, and many other things.
None of those claims are exaggerations. They are all real, and they're all comments that I've reported to you and other mods, from people of all genders and sexualities, and as as I can visibly see as a regular user, nothing has been done about them. Only the most extreme cases have been removed; and do the ones above not sound extreme at all just the same? If any of those sound far-fetched, I can send any given comment to you, if you've already lost a few of them from the last message I last sent."
I felt it was important to state my intentions right away; these weren't bans done out of personal irritation, though there certainly was that, but because I felt all those users had repeatedly broken the rules against discriminatory comments, and even though blocking people is against the rules and can result in posting privileges being revoked, that's the issue that should naturally take precedent if you have any semblance of priorities. It was... a gamble, to say the least.
For the last several months, I've gone through some of the trans wank posts days after they happened and sent discriminatory comments to report to Zyuranger and toxic_illusion (a couple times for the former, mostly for the latter), starting shortly before the new rules were instated up until about a month ago. The messages were about once a month on average IIRC, sometimes one or two more if there was follow up after the initial one. I usually waited until a couple posts were done with, since this is all on my free time and it was more convenient for the mods anyway to have everything bundled together. This worked out pretty well for a while since the worst of the trolls were finally banned, or at least received warnings, as far as I know. Zyuranger and toxic_illusion were often friendly and accomodating when I messaged them, and they've personally faced a lot of backlash for taking actions against the worst of these comments.
I went on to say, "I have removed them from my activity on here because they've demonstrated for months on end, recenty, not just one off instances or even something they learned from and recognized they were wrong for, or something a year or longer ago, that they don't deserve my time and energy.
Moreover, that standard of ONTD is under the section "NEED TO REPORT SOMEONE?" which I have done multiple times, and that option has been exhausted. It has not worked."
Again for context: the T should be dropped from LGBTQ, gender identity is bullshit, trans women are as violent as cis men, trans women are comparable to mens's right activists and love palying oppression olympics, gay trans people don't exist, and more were the comments I was talking about. That last part is especially something, because of how much shit gay trans guys face, and how many non-binary and trans lesbians make up lesbian communities (and before you jump in - no, I don't think there's an inherent issue with not being attracted to trans people, and people can be homophobic when talking insisting there fundamentally is [excluding non-binary/genderqueer people, because there's no set look or anything to what that means]). In part of the message, I said,
"I'm interested in knowing; how exactly is my personal banning of these select individuals not completely warranted at this point? How is this not plain and simple bigotry that the mod leadership as a whole hasn't done enough about? Because all the types of comments I listed above are completely real. I can send them if there's an external criteria that needs to be met, if there's a metric to this personal choice that can be judged. And if someone bans another user for those said comments, in what way do you make a distinction between a warranted choice as a user and "censorship" from one person in a larger community; If a trans user banned someone for consistently making transphobic comments against them, a gay person against homophobic comments, or anyone else as a measure of security and controlling their emotional well-being, how can that simply be considered "censoring"?"
Afterwards, I sent my first response to Zyuranger. Soon after, I got a response detailing that most of the users I mentioned had already faced warnings, and that just because regular users couldn't see it didn't mean that the mods weren't doing anything. The mods had gotten a lot of flack, and one was even threatened. However, this was the entire point I had already about; most of these users as far as I was aware had warnings for transphobia and transmisogyny already, which is one of the reasons why I blocked them. I knew that some users had been warned and that the worst of them had been banned. Furthermore, I had only spoken to Zyuranger about these comments once, so it was very possible that he hadn't seen at least some of the ones I had previously reported elsewhere or didn't remember them; hence the "I can send" those comments and demonstrate the history of discriminatory comments I was talking about, leading to my decision, which as I see it, is the more important rule in this situation.
Zyuranger also mentioned some users were banned after a recent trans topic post. Not letting users comment in posts also prevents them from being able to provide any substantial evidence of their behavior that could get them repreimanded. At the end of the message, Zyuranger said I related my stance, but that as the site's maintainer, I had to follow his request or else my posting privileges would be revoked.
Again, the idea of evidence was something I talked about; for most of the users I blocked, there was already enough evidence to take further action, especially, again, if he hadn't seen all of the reported comments, which I offered to show him based on my past messages to mods. I replied that I felt he was avoiding the point of what I was getting at, and said,
"And when I say I’ve reported comments, I MEAN comments: I’m not talking about special circumstances to ban someone outright because one comment that's messy - although as far as I’m concerned, saying trans people should be kicked out of the LGBTQ community, calling trans women as violent as cis men and laughing at blatantly misgendering trans people should absolutely be one offense bans" I went on to say that if he has any inquiries about those comments, "Just ask me. If you think my banning them is worthy of punishment, you should want to know about them too."
I also went on to say that my posting privileges could be revoked, which I knew was a risk, "but most users like the ones I've mentioned are still going to have them just because they don’t do what is, to be quite honest, a pretty arbitrary rule based around banning people, because I’ve pretty clearly described not only why it’s warranted for me on a personal level, but why lots of other users have felt the same about trans posts and even avoided for quite a while now, and why I have no political patience or emotional energy left to tolerate people shitting on trans people under the guise of intellectualism the same way every single time, especially given everything that’s happening."
I said I was not going to unblock those users with the way things currently stand, and I also said, "I am willing to link to the comments, as in more than one for most of them and often at least three, that demonstrate exactly what I’m talking about, and speak further about it. Because maybe the rules aren’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing - and if you think that me taking a step to avoid another mess that me and other users would eventually have to report because it wasn’t preemptively stopped, only for mods to have to comb through the post anyway [...] is somehow worth pulling posting priviliges from while these other users don’t face similar or worse consequences for their much worse actions, then maybe there needs to be a reflection of and change in priorities that show what a significant number of users have still been saying for some time now when they talk about how the new rules haven’t been enough."
At the end I asked him to consider what I said and why I would risk being unable to make posts, and if he said which users sent the complaints, I could likely demonstrate everything that I was talking about. I should also add that when I say new rules, I also mean the mod's understanding of the rules, which is effectively the same thing in practice but an important distinction, because mods adhere to the rules, but mods are not monolithic.
Anyone who's ever run or played some role in running an online community before will know how difficult it is when you have a lot of people screaming and demanding your attention for every little thing, especially in your day to day life and how much time it can suck away, but that in the end, it's usually worth it, or something yada yada, because you enjoy going back to that community for some reason, and wouldn't have taken on that role if you didn't. But what's also more important is that the results of your actions in making a comm a safe place for everyone matters above all else and how you feel about what you're doing.
The mods have done a good job taking care of the worst users and warning others in spite of backlash, but that isn't necessarily the end of the road, even if people feels it's mostly done; especially since just about everyone making comments about, responding, reporting, and making rules about transphobic comments are almost completely cis people. Most trans or intersex users that were here have been driven away, by time and growing out of it or by the unique vein of transmisogyny on ONTD, and everyone else is still left here having to talk about how to deal with what constitutes discrimation and what constitutes respectful "debate" about transgender-related issues, which I use loosely, because that's how some of these comments are protected, despite the history of some users.
It's also important to note that one of the things I've gotten out of my interactions with mods early on about these comments is that it can often feel like an uphill battle, and that mods have to make a fuss about demonstrating a history of discriminatory comments from a user; just trying to report one doesn't necessairly mean the user will be talked to or warned, not if you can't demonstrate the... history, lets say, of where the user is coming from. Another thing I also got is that users who've received warnings for transphobic comments sometimes dressed up their commentary in other rhetoric, which made it difficult to take action on when reporting. These are critical elements to talking about rules, and how mods interpret them, especially, again, as a bunch of cis people who have problems as an online community talking about trans people, and especially women.
I received two more messages from Zyuranger, both short, and entirely ignoring everything that I talked about in my message except for the "I'm sorry, but no," part.
He said that I was not a mod, and that I did not get to choose who comments or not in the community, and that is all.
This wasn't only dismissing what I was talking about, or not acknowledging my repeated offer to demonstrate that the users who sent him the complaints have a history of discriminatory comments (that he likely hasn't seen entirely), but was detracting from the point when I expressed from the beginning, this was a personal choice I made because the rules haven't been effective enough, "and as as I can visibly see as a regular user, nothing has been done about them." That isn't to say Zyuranger was wrong in that statement; blocking people is against the rules that can result in not being able to make posts, which I knew was a risk. But like I just said in my last message, "and if you think that me taking a step to avoid another mess that me and other users would eventually have to report because it wasn’t preemptively stopped, only for mods to have to comb through the post anyway [...] is somehow worth pulling posting priviliges from while these other users don’t face similar or worse consequences [...] then maybe there needs to be a reflection of and change in priorities that show what a significant number of users have still been saying for some time now when they talk about how the new rules haven’t been enough." There were two things going on here, not just one; and neither were simple issues. That was not "all" there was to the situation. This was not a flippant choice against users who hadn't done anything wrong.
I said that he was avoiding what I was talking about, which was made up of two main points, which you can identify by now; that I blocked these users for having a history of these comments, many of whom have or have probably received warnings, and also that I could probably demonstrate that for the people who sent Zyuranger the complaints in the first place. If my blocking people was against the rules, any mod should also want to see the comments I was talking about, and judge whether or not they are against the rules or not. I also said,
"You already said yourself you spoke to users about this [...] so you should know there's probably MORE than just that already out there."
This was relevant to reiterate because the mods are aware of the kind of comments I was referring to, even without me specifically describing them in the first sentence of my first message, but that they still might not have seen all of them, because they aren't a single hive mind with a neural processor, or sometimes people just forget, or don't have enough energy to always deal with them.
Some time passed, and later that day when I was free to check, I still hadn't received a response. I wrote another message to Zyu restating the same points I've already made in paraphrased form, including,
"I didn't just do it for the heck of it - since you already know and have spoken to some of these people for offenses like [...] you should also be aware that there's probably more to their history of comments, since those signify a deeply-ingrained and hateful belief that to regular users like myself hasn't faced enough visible action. Waiting for another terrible wank post to finally collect "substantial evidence" as you said is unnecessary for some users here because there's already more than enough from recent months, and because of it, most users don't want any posts on the topic at all, lest they have to avoid them period.
But I don't know who you're specifically referring to, despite you saying you relayed the contents of what I said, and I would like to know so I can show you what I mean."
Soon after, I received a response, the second and last of the short messages.
He said I thought I was a moderator when I was not. He asked me politely to undo the blocks, and I didn't do that. I defied a mod's request several times, and that was why I could no longer post.
This again, had nothing to do with what I said, and distinctly went against what I was talking about before about how I was aware I was not a mod (and several times? I said no once, with a desire to talk further about it, and he'd only sent one response since, not requesting anything). I was aware I couldn't make posts and didn't say anything about that. (After I wrote my first response to Zyu overnight and before I got a response, I wrote the HTML for a followup to the Trump Admin post and went to bed; I posted it quickly in the queue later, in the morning when I could, before I had time to write my second response, and figured it wouldn't get posted - but like I said, I also didn't mention it in any of my messages). Me being able to make posts wasn't the issue at hand; everything else that I said was completely ignored, including my offer to show him the reported comments I described right off the bat in the first message. Afterwards, I wrote another response, but was unable to send it because Zyuranger had changed the privacy settings, and later I realized he'd blocked me entirely.
I was still able to comment in posts generally though, which I did, even though I couldn't make posts themselves, but the issue was still unresolved, and I didn't want it to be. I couldn't speak to Zyuranger after that and haven't been able to since. Later that night, I sent toxic_illusion a message, summarizing what happened with Zyuranger in much shorter terms, also talking about the kinds of discriminatory comments that I'd previously reported, and how they warrant attention like me blocking people for them should also.
"I realize this doesn't have anything to do with your job as a mod, and I'm not really sure what else I'm writing this message for but maybe, advice, or anything else, because I'm at a loss for whether it's worth dealing with this comm anymore." I expressed frustration at not being able to respond to Zyuranger, and that I felt he was ignoring my point about the users with transmisogynist comments, even though he knew about at least some of the comments I was talking about, and I offered to demonstrate what I was talking about to him. At the end of the message I expressed I knew toxic_illusion may disagree with me for blocking people, particularly in her role as a mod, but that I was grateful for what she'd done for the comm, and for taking the time to read the message and speak to me.
After I was able to check the next day, I saw her response.
toxic_illusion said that they've dealth with the transphobia as best we can in this community, but that gender critical commentary is still allowed regardless of how much we agree with it or not. She also said she will not silence women or their opinions. If it's not breaking the rules, it would be allowed.
This is what I meant before when I talked about any given mod's interpretaton of the rules in an online community... and now I have to rewind for a moment.
-
About a month ago, during the last round of messages I sent to toxic_illusion about reported comments, I repeated all the same sentiments I did at the beginning of this entry and in my first entry to Zyuranger, summarizing the issue with the comments that I linked to:
"to recap:
1) trans women are sexual predators like cis men bc "males are the same" according to notorious transphobic users here. trans women never transition, and if they do it doesn't make a difference.
2) trans women only exist because they embody gender stereotypes, rather than sometimes using or being adjacent to stereotypes in femininity to explore their gender identity, because above all else people hate transfeminine people and women.
3) trans women are using trans men, who are just brainwashed women only identifying as men to escape oppression, in order to get what they want.
4) all clueless and sexist rhetoric from the occasional trans person and all cis people ever are the responsibility of trans women and a sign that gender identity is nonsense the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater.
5) trans women uphold the gender binary even though 50% of trans women attempt suicide before age 25. they benefit from it and aren't oppressed, and they're only oppressed because they like embodying feminine stereotypes." *reffering to trans women of color
After I said thanks again, and hoped she had a good weekend, because mods are people. Usually when I sent comments to mods, I included a sentence or two next to it describing what the problem was, especially since as I'd learned before one comment wasn't always enough, even on its own; it had to have context and be applied to how it broke the rules. I was often very specific in the comments I reported (if also, clearly, a little annoyed too), which part of them if anything more specific, and why I felt they were discriminatory. I sent one more followup because I realized I had a couple threads I forgot to include in the message. Anyone who's read any of my posts on ONTD will know I am very specific and try to include all the relevant information I can for users to glean.
I received the response that she'd gone through and dealt with the users who deserved it, but that the rules state that discourse is allowed and people and women were allowed to express their gender critical views.
toxic_illusion did not specifiy what kinds of or specific comments she felt were not breaking the rules, especially since I was very specific in my message shown above. I responded, thanking her for taking action, but also said,
"... like i listed, "trans lesbians are straight men", "trans women are just as violent as cis men", "gay trans people don't exist", "trans men are just women who want to escape oppression", "gender identity isn't real", "trans racial people are just like trans people", "trans people enforce the gender binary", comparing trans women to MRAs, saying trans people participate in oppression olympics [...] are not simply gender critical views."
Even if they are gender critical views or based in them, they aren't just that, and that doesn't make them correct; they're pretty clearly transphobia dressed up in intellectual rhetoric on here, especially given the history of the users that they come from, which was included in that round of messages. I did not receive a response to that message, which at the time, I didn't think was a big deal, because mods are people and people are busy. Looking back, I should have seen that this would be an issue later on in how rules are different from interpretations of the rules by the people who enforce them. It was a disagreement, but disagreements can have wider consequences given the dynamic between a regular user and mods in online communities.
-
Back to present day, toxic_illusion mentioned gender critical views without specifying what exactly she meant. In the first message I sent to toxic_illusion that prompted this response, I included in my paraphrasing, "I made two points; that I could show these reported comments I was talking about (among them: that trans people should be kicked out of the lgbtq community, that trans women are as violent as cis men, and that trans gay people don't exist) and that they weren't just one-off offenses," so I was, again, very specific again about the comments I was talking about, which I'd also described in previous messages a month ago, and not using generalizations or being vague. toxic_illusion also mentioned I was being unfair in saying that Zyuranger hasn't done a good job in moderating this community. I didn't say he wasn't doing a good job, since this is just one subject in an entire online community, I said that the rules haven't been as effective as they should be, and that ignoring the comments I was talking about was "coddling" transmisogynists in that sense - which is why I decided to block them in the first place.
In my response, I reiterated my specificity and asked toxic_illusion to be specific,
"What part of the comments I mentioned, including trans people being violent, being walking talking stereotypes, how they should be kicked out of the lgbtq community, and how gay trans people don’t exist at all is merely gender critical commentary? That’s the stuff I’m talking about [...] It’s how that kind of stuff is allowed because it isn’t considered “breaking the rules”. That’s hateful speech and blatant transphobia. How exactly is it not? You and Zyu both know those aren’t one off instanced for some users, they’re deeply ingrained beliefs that have been allowed to foster on this website"
I also specified that I wasn't freely blocking anyone who'd ever expressed a thought relating to being gender critical, because having views similar to being gender critical doesn't mean you're transphobic, but rather users with specific histories of comments, many of whom have received warnings. Near the end of toxic_illusion's message, she said I don't get to block users because I didn't want to deal with shitty comments. That's being on the internet.
toxic_illusioned ended the message with insisting I unblock the users. As a mod, that's the correct thing to say, because blocking is against the rules and can result in not being able to make posts - but it's also ignoring everything that I said to both Zyuranger and toxic_illusion (though, as I would find out, my conversation with Zyuranger was likely not accurately paraphrased to other parties), not in concluding that blocking was against the rules, but in everything else that I was talking about. Again, I offered to demonstrate to both Zyuranger and toxic_illusion the comments I described - especially since they probably don't remember or haven't seen all of them - but that was never acknowledged in any message I received.
I continued,
"I don’t know how it got the point where you think the comments I’m talking about are just gender critical views (they aren’t, they’re discriminatory comments), how that would be considered “silencing”, or why you would insinuate any of these things about me. Trans women (and trans men, when concern trolling) and their lives and experiences are constantly silenced, dissected, and put under a microscope for the purposes of cis users here to talk about how ugly, male, violent and entitled they are - how is that not actual, real life effective silencing of women? Most of all, not wanting to deal with “shitty comments”? Is the entire point of reporting them, as users are instructed to do by the rules, not that mods want help in stopping shitty, discriminatory comments? These aren’t just shitty comments. If a trans user reported then to you (which, they’ve all been driven away), would you tell them that’s just part of being on the internet? Even though I knew you would disagree with my decision and not budge or whatever as a mod, I thought you might understand the kind of rhetoric I was talking about"
I ended my response and second message with,
"It’s not just all that; it’s that I can’t even respond to Zyu now at all. In the last message he sent, he said something about how I wasn’t able to make posts, which I knew and had nothing to do with what I was talking about, because he wasn’t answering any of the points I’ve made here in less detail. How am I supposed to deal with it if I can’t communicate with him, or how is any user who’s unhappy with how transphobia has been dealt with here (because there are a lot of people, including many women, and you know that) if a mod can cut off access because they can just do that? Because that’s what I said in my first message to you."
A brief amount of time passed. I didn't receive a response or answer to any of my questions.
I went into a post to make a comment and saw that I'd been banned.
I sent another message to toxic_illusion, because I doubted I was going to get a response to my second, saying that I wasn't given any warning and didn't understand what the grounds for the banning was, including,
"I sent a response trying to talk to you about this. Revoking posting privileges, yes, which I understood.
What's going on?"
From there on out, I only received two more messages from toxic_illusion, none of which were any responses to what I was talking about, or to any of the questions I raised about what constituted discriminatory comments, how the specific ones I've mentioned in this entry about four times were not, or how I was supposed to resolve with Zyuranger when I was unable to speak with him.
toxic_illusion answered, I was told by Zyuranger to remove the blocks and I didn't.
But as Zyuranger stated, that resulted in not being able to make posts; neither Zyuranger nor the rules refer to banning people entirely or further action beyond revoking posting privileges. Not only that, I was not warned by toxic_illusion or anyone.
I started off describing that I stated to Zyuranger I was willing to show him the comments I blocked people for to see if they broke the rules; I never stated I wasn't ever going to take away the blocks, "I am willing to link to the comments, as in more than one for most of them and often at least three, that demonstrate exactly what I’m talking about, and speak further about it." I went on to say that he might not have seen the comments I was talking about, which could also constitute breaking the rules, which was something he ignored and then made it unable for me to speak to him. I continued,
"I just sent a message to you expanding upon what I said. What exactly from any of that warranted banning?
I said we disagreed on what comments consitutute discrimination, but that I wasn't given any warning at all for being banned. "In Zyu's last message to me, like I just said to you, he said my posting privileges were removed, which I understood. Nothing about further action.
What's going on?"
toxic_illusion replied with saying I didn't get to make the rules.
This was so far off of the point of the point this entire situation stemmed from I was taken aback. No, I don't get to make the rules; but the rules state that transphobic comments are against them, and what we (and other users on here) disagree over is what exactly that means. What exactly is the line between discrimination and not? The easiest predictor, of course, is unrecognized past behavior from whatever user you're talking about, which I offered to demonstrate, but that's not all - going back to the critical elements of mods enforcing rules as they interpret them, how do you decide what makes a comm safe, what should be allowed even if you disagree with it, and what to do about bigotry if it's dressed up in rhetoric? What happens when mods have different interpretations of breaking this rule? And to press the question again - what about the specific kinds of comments I've been describing the entire time were not breaking the rules? To which I never got an answer.
Across my messages, I was always very specific in what the reported comments were and why they were bad, and how they made up the unique vein of transphobia and transmisogyny that's still present on ONTD. I was very specific in these messages to Zyuranger and toxic_illusion because I didn't want there to be any misinterpretations (which may have happened anyway, inevitably).
On a more personal note, I haven't ever received a warning or a three strike anything on this website. I clearly had problems with the comm, and we're all here to complain sometimes, but they mostly weren't anything I felt couldn't be improved or were unique problems compared to other websites, until now anyway, and I enjoyed going on there most of the time or else I wouldn't have gone back there and contributed posts and my own interests and talk with other people. Even the worst of the trolls received warnings before being banned - how long did it take for nuclearseasonz or fka to get banned? The person with the anna wintour icon went on for post after post misgendering trans women before it happened. One user I recall had to talk about trans women getting their dicks cut off before they were finally banned. And tbh, there are... other people still left who've skated by for a while, and this isn't even getting to the real point; that with all those discriminatory comments I blocked people for, the blocking was somehow worse, and warranted this action. In addition, challenging cis mods on what they consider transphobic, and what transmisogyny they're willing to let slide, unable to provide an explanation as to why, even when faced with very specific examples.
It would've been one thing if this was warned in statements from the mods or in the rules, but it wasn't, I was in the middle of having an exchange with another mod who hadn't even been the one I was initially talking to about this problem. And I suspect a lot of people are going to cite, "it's the rules" and that the mods acted correctly. Thank you for your input. Yes, blocking people is against the rules - but I think I've clarified by now there's more going on here then just rules. Rules can all interpreted by mods in any online community differently, even when they come to an agreement at some point, and rules can adapt to whatever suits a community best, or what doesn't, or some mix of the two. And all the mods are cis, and so are most of the users.
In my previous messages, that's what I asked both Zyuranger and then toxic_illusion; how are these comments not discriminatory? Do you know about all of them? Because I've reported them before, and so have other users, and you might not have seen them. How do you draw a line between which rules are more important? Both Zyuranger and toxic_illusion reacted the same way; they reiterated one set of rules over the other and wouldn't acknowledge most of what I was talking about, as much as they've been a big help with the worst users and trolls on here. It isn't about individual mods doing a good job or not, it's about the collective effect that mods have when dealing with discrimination; but even then, if there's no clear interpretation of what constitutes that and not, there's always going to be room for the specific kinds of comments I've been talking about this entire time, which I feel are clearly discriminatory.
This is something I said from the beginning.
"Because maybe the rules aren’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing - and if you think that me taking a step to avoid another mess that me and other users would eventually have to report because it wasn’t preemptively stopped, only for mods to have to comb through the post anyway [...] is somehow worth pulling posting priviliges from while these other users don’t face similar or worse consequences for their much worse actions, then maybe there needs to be a reflection of and change in priorities that show what a significant number of users have still been saying for some time now when they talk about how the new rules haven’t been enough."
I reached out to toxic a few more times, offering to apologize for overstepping the rules and undo the blocks that night and the next day. I also tried reaching out to ms_melissa and blacktinbox, though at this point, I haven't received any responses, and I suspect that I won't. Either because I probably sounded frantic, or because they've drawn conclusions from another mod paraphrasing what I said, which is fair, it doesn't have anything to do with them (that's another thing about being a mod - you're not always in the loop and don't have time to be), and they might disagree with me anyway.
At first I was upset when I was banned - anything that's part of your daily or weekly ritual being taken away can feel weird at first, even distressing, and I wanted to come back and argued that this was a dispraportionate response from the mods (which, it was) even if I couldn't make posts. But then I realized that if this is really the best that mods can do against the transphobia and transmisogyny on here, if the kinds of comments I described can just be protected under the guise of debate, I'm better off spending my time elsewhere. There's no use worrying about it anymore, and I feel better not having to do so. The reaction that I got really illustrated to me the priorities some of you have. Sometimes rules are not the most important thing, and some rules should be more important then others. Sometimes you have to interrogate what you consider transphobic and ask yourself what that says about you. Things aren't always supposed to be clear-cut and easy, and warrant deeper reflection and a better response than what happened here.
I suspect a lot of people are going to disagree with how I went about this, even if they sympathize with the situation or agree that transphobia is still an issue on ONTD, which is fine. Not exactly a great strategy, but one I wanted to take a risk for - and even when I got a chance to make my points, they were dismissed. I certainly let my frustration and emotions get the better of me a few times, even though I was always specific in my complaints and stated several times the mods have otherwise done a good job, even if I and other users feel some things need to change. Or maybe you're just here for the drama, which I respect.
But I suspect a lot of people are going to disagree with me entirely because you really do believe trans women are as violent as cis men, that laughing at misgendered trans women is funny, that gay trans people don't exist and are delusional and predatory, that trans people should be removed from the LGBTQ community, that gender identity theory is bullshit, that trans people are nothing more than walking talking stereotypes, that trans women are really your enemies because of intracommunity disputes or others and are comparable to men's right activists, that men and women aren't terms with room for both cis and trans people, or any combination of the above, not in a case of simply ignorance and not understanding, because that's not what I'm talking about, but from a deeper place of disgust and hatred - in which case, go figure. You're an asshole.