First, I’d love to provide an opportunity for guest posts, if anyone is interested. If you have a topic you’d like to write on, let me know. If you have an older post from your own blog you’d like to expose to a wider audience (meager as that ‘wider audience’ may be!) let me know that, too. Shoot me an email at blog [at] fridaythang.com; I’d love to hear from you.

Likewise, if anyone has any questions for me they’re dying to have answered, or topics they would like to see me write on, I’m open to that, too. (Shamelessly stealing a page from Bond’s book.) Leave a question or a topic in the comments, or shoot me an email.

I hope to hear from you!

I’m pretty sure I’d keep my primary email addresses at fridaythang.com, out of momentum if nothing else, but it seems like it might be time to phase out fridaythang.com as a place to send anyone looking for my existence online.

Thoughts on the potential move? My current idea for renaming my blog is to borrow my upcoming show title, Uncovering the Mirrors. (Did I ever mention I chose that as a show title? I did. Yay! More posts on the show coming soon…)

Except (and maybe this is a silly reason not to choose something) that’d put me even lower on people’s alphabetical blogrolls… I’m also considering all of the other ideas I considered as possible show titles, but would welcome other suggestions.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

I don’t make tons of money from the advertisements on this blog. It’s been about $10 a month, which basically covers my hosting costs for this blog. That said, it’s really exciting to get some money – no matter how little – for doing something I enjoy doing anyway.

For all that, I’m a bit of a hypocrite: I block ads when I’m online, and strongly recommend that everyone else should, too. The difference is pretty incredible.

There, isn't that better?

First lets cover the ‘how.’ I use Firefox, a browser available on Windows, Mac, and Linux. I have an add-on installed called Adblock Plus, which automatically filters and blocks just about 99% of the ads out there. The filter automatically updates, so as advertisers get sneakier and sneakier, AdBlock Plus gets sneakier, too. That makes it super-easy to block the vast majority of ads out there. On top of that, most of the blogs I’m reading I read through Google Reader, which generally doesn’t display ads anyway.

But why do I block ads? Well, I block ads because their fucking annoying. And that’s why I’m a hypocrite. The ads on my blog have animations. I’m pretty sure they don’t have sound, and I’m almost positive I don’t let them fly over the rest of the page, even though both of those are options that might make me a bit more money. The more obnoxious you let advertisers be, the more they’re willing to pay you.

Womanist Musings had a really interesting post on the economics of blogging recently, and it was definitely the prompt for me to write this post. Renee  talks about the lack of financial intensives to blog, about how advertising rarely pays for much beyond hosting of the blog itself, about the difficulties of Google Reader when it comes to advertising revenue, and about the perceptions that advertising = lots of money:

Blogging is work.  What’s more — it is unpaid labour for most of us that do it.  This may not mean much to you, but I ask you to consider that most of the work women do in this world is unpaid and this largely contributes to the economic gender imbalance.  So when I see yet another blogger having to explain why she has ads that are questionable, it makes me upset.

She finishes with a request for donations, and an acknowledgment that blogging – for all but the biggest bloggers out there – is not a lucrative source of income.

Meanwhile, Ars Technica (a site with a very different focus than Womanist Musings) recently posted an article on Why Ad Blocking is devastating the sites you love. From the article:

My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love. I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil. It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin. As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature

I think this is a much more compelling argument than about morals or ethics, because it’s about the results not the intentions. I don’t think I’m doing anything unethical or immoral by using an ad blocker. At the same time, I can acknowledge Ars Technica’s point that my intentions or morals or ethics may not matter when it comes to the loss of revenue that would occur if everyone started blocking everyone’s ads online.

Now, I also have a donations link. (It’s here, for those who have never seen it.) That link doesn’t bring much money in, either. Probably a little less – on average – than the advertising revenue. But those dollars are ultimately more important, and more satisfying, because they meant an individual cared enough to make a donation. That’s an active role, rather than the passive or default decision to not block someone’s ads.

I’m honest enough to know that I won’t stop blocking ads. I may try white-listing sites that I really like, which means that I would not longer block ads on their pages, thus helping their advertising revenue. I’ll also try donating to blogs and sites I regularly read. I’ve donated to Venus Envy, to Ellen Hayes & Tucker, and to a few other sites.

But tell me, oh faithful readers: should I pull ads from this site? Are y’all willing to chip in enough to make it worth my while to pull ads from this site?

Let me know your thoughts.

It’s not a widely-read blog. I never figured I’d need to.

Following some recent discussion, I figured it’d be worthwhile to issue a clarification of what I’ve already been doing.

So, without further ado, the Comments Policy for The Thang Blog:

Rule Zero: The final decider on whether any comment may be posted is Rebecca, Author of the Blog. Posting of comments are contingent of her capricious, subjective, and biased will.

Translation: It’s my damn blog. I make the rules.

Rule One: Being polite, on-topic, and respectful will increase the likelihood that your comment will be posted.

Translation: Play nice.

Rule Two: Being rude, off-topic, and disrespectful will increase the likelihood that your comment won’t be posted, and that you’ll be banned from future commenting.

Translation: Play nice.

Rule Three: If you think someone else is breaking Rules One and Two, let them (and Rebecca) know. It’s entirely possible they didn’t realize it and/or Rebecca didn’t notice. But let them know while continuing to play nice yourself.

Translation: People – myself included – aren’t perfect. I try to catch people being rude, off-topic, etc, but it’s possible I didn’t notice. It’s also possible I noticed but still allowed it, or noticed and didn’t think it was rude, off-topic, etc. See: Rule Zero.

Addendum: If you think Rebecca isn’t obeying her own rules, feel free to call her on it. She usually tries not to be rude or disrespectful, and is almost always willing to entertain honest dissent.

Translation: Let me know if I’m being a jerk. I really don’t like to be disrespectful or rude, and I’m usually quick to back up and apologize when I step on someone’s toes. But bear in mind Rule Zero: My definition of ‘jerk’ may differ from yours, or I may be OK with being a jerk in some specific instance. In either case, Rule Zero applies.

Well, the (queer) blogosphere is (once again) up in arms over trans related discussions, so I thought I’d (once again) try and construct a timeline so that I could better understand what the heck has been going on. Here we go!

General note: I’m realizing, rereading this, that I switch between present and past tense. I’m too lazy to got back through everything, particularly since WordPress is still making me write posts in HTML and not with a WYSIWYG editor. Deal with it. Also, if you don’t care about the specifics and want to know what I think, scroll way to the bottom, past all the bullet points.

• On June 26, Autumn Sandeen posted Aravosis Needs To Issue His Own Apology To Trans People Before Citing TGs Regarding Fed LGBT Issues at Pam’s House Blend. Autumn called out Aravosis for a number of different things, and she said why better than I could:
  

  Mr. Aravosis owes an apology to the transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community for personally approving of kicking transgender people and issues out of the broad lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community for the benefit of ENDA 2007/2008, and now he currently owes a fresh apology to the transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community for using a story about the transgender subcommunity to make a point about the Obama Administration’s treatment of LGBT people.

  The comments and conversation in Autumn’s post got rather accusatory, not only at Aravosis, but at cis, gay men in general. From what I can tell, the thread really started to get argumentative around here, and turned from discussing Aravosis to discussing the use of cis as a label/identifier, and whether or not it is/can be/should be offensive. (Note that I’m trying not to say right now which side I think I agree with, just pointing out what I’m seeing. “Argumentative” does not mean “wrong.”) And the meta-argument about the use of cis, which became the main issue in the days to come, really got going slightly further down the thread, here, with someone saying:

  I still find it offensive to be described as such [cisgender]. It is no different that for a trans person to say do not refer to me as pre-op or do not define me as the gender I am from. If I were to do it anyway…. that is not acceptable no more than to lump all white gay men into this category. Just admit that you have issues with gwm [gay white men] and leave it at that, but to lump everyone into one category is offensive to me. To call me CIS is offensive when it is a made up name and not an identity that I choose it is offensive. This is done because it is easy for you and rather than to have a dialogue you choose to dump us all into one category as the enemy and that is what I find offensive. Don’t put words into my mouth and do not fucking pretend that you are any more righteous than me, because when you use this language it only serves to distance us from each other and offends me. It is no different than if I started calling you a tranny… I would think that would be offensive.

  The comments went from there to a healthy mix of people continuing to try and have a constructive, rational discussion, and a number of people engaging in name-calling, intentionally/unintentionally misunderstanding what other people were saying, and the like.

• On June 28, Autumn posted a followup, Enough Already, in which she said, in part:
  

  To say I’m angry at some of my trans peers for their comments on white, gay men in the diary Aravosis Needs To Issue His Own Apology To Trans People Before Citing TGs Regarding Fed LGBT Issues is an understatement.

  How does one take a diary about one famous blogger’s comments on trans people and turn it into a thread where white gay men are attacked with a broad brush? Especially with the diversity focus of Pam’s House Blend? Incredible.

  Again, the initial discussion was (mostly) calm and (mostly) reasonable. What seemed to set things off again was turning the discussion toward the use of cis:

  For the record, I find cis- to be offensive. In general, I thought our community (I mean the whole LGBT rainbow here) uses terms that are acceptable to those being described. That is, we use the preferred gender of trans people, we call someone bi if they identify as bi, we don’t say tranny, etc.

  So why is it okay for (some of) the trans community to call us cis-? If members of the trans community said “stop calling us trans, we find it offensive” would we here at PHB continue to say “trans”? I doubt it very much.

  Why the lack of respect in the other direction?

  Again, I’m not commenting on whether or not this commenter was right, wrong, inflammatory, conciliatory, whatever. Just noting that bringing cis back into the discussion did turn it away from talking about civility and how to hold discussions on The Blend to a discussion (often ugly) about cis/trans terminology.

  Autumn stepped in here to say, “Public warning in this thread — next person who uses this thread to make comment defending “cis” terminology gets a trap door drop.”

• Early on June 29, Lisa at Questioning Transphobia responded to all this by posting Cis is hostile terminology? Really? In it she reminded people:
  

  Cis is a neutral term applied to people who aren’t trans. It’s intended to decenter the notion that not being trans is the natural, default state for human beings and that being trans is a deviation, and that trans people are other. Most terminology that cis people use to define themselves as cis generally reifies cissexism and cissupremacy.

  (Can you tell I’m doing a bad job staying neutral?)

  Lisa continued by saying, “Just to be clear, it’s not [my concern] that Autumn disagrees with “cis” terminology. It’s the tone argument (used at least twice), and the threat to ban anyone who defends “cis” usage.

  The comments and discussion are generally supportive of the word/concept cis(gender/sexual). It looks like (as of writing this) discussion has also turned to Pam’s House Blend removing comments without any acknowledgment or discussion, and of how to hold better and more civil discussions in the future.

• Later on June 29, Renee at Transsexual Ferox posted Poison?, with her initial thoughts on what’s been happening:
  

  I was a little surprised really. I see it as an academic term, used mostly to distinguish between tran and non-trans when context is important for such things. I hadn’t considered its negative impact because, really, let’s face it, I wish I was cisgendered. Or natal. Or genetic. Or normal. Or whatever other word means born with a coherent female identity…pick your poison.

  Which suggests that perhaps the problem really does lay with me. I can’t speak about others because, well, I’m not them. Among my friends and I, if someone’s using the word trans, it’s usually me. I’m the one who brings it up. I’m the one who talks about it. I’m the one assigning labels.

  And if you feel the need to tell someone they’re cisgendered – if you give them that label – are you merely drawing a distinction between the two of you, or are you implicitly suggesting some level of cissexism on their part? And if you are, isn’t that a little bit cisphobic of you?

  Does the term cisgender mean a whole lot more than: a person whose biological sex and gender identity are synchronous?

• Keeva also weighed in on June 29 with “cis”, summarizing what had been happening thus far, expressing her disappointment in Autumn and PHB, and finding a choice comment comparing trans people using ‘cis’ to what the Nazis did to the Jews.
• And, lastly for June 29, Jackson at Queer Subversion put in his two cents, as did geopunk.
• On June 30, Mattie at xoros posted Cis. Particularly relevant:
  

  The trans modifier is only there when… relevant. Cis modifiers are even less often relevant, because it’s the unspoken expectation. The only time it needs using is when it would be confusing or othering not to use it. So, it’s not meant to be used as an identifier. It is a descriptor. That’s all. Just a way to avoid saying “woman and trans women”, or “women don’t face some of the issues trans women do” cos that would be like othering. You know? What is wrong with being able to say those with equality and respect for each other in the form “cis women don’t face some of the issues trans women do”?

  You don’t have to use it like an identity or use it all the time or use it when it’s not relevant or if there is no need to distinguish between trans and cis people or use it when shopping or use it when you need to pee or anything else? Kthxbai.

  Likewise, I appreciate this summation:

  Cos, you know, there is little more soul wearying than talking to someone who wants to say “I’m normal, you’re not, no need for a word to describe me! I’m normal! Now stop being an angry, difficult trans person so I can go back to feeling sorry for you and happy about my normalness.”

  Mattie followed up on July 1 with And even more cis use and on July 3 with Cis the Third. If your eyes are crossing at this point, go read Cis the Third, if nothing else, to get an idea of what the argument about whether or not to use cis boils down to.

  (At this point I realize I’ve dropped any real pretense of neutrality…)

• On June 30, Marti at TransAdvocate posted A Strange Brew – Pams House Blend now serving Privelege.
• July 1 also saw Veronique from TransCanada post Counteroffensive, which reiterates the importance of ‘cis’ in gender dialogue.
• On July 2, Nelson (note: name corrected since original post) at NGblog posted Stop Bleeding Pam, who isn’t happy with out PHB is handling things, but also isn’t actually correct with his take on what’s happening in the first place:
  

  So here we have, Autumn, a transgender, taking issue with people who, for whatever reason identify as cisgender, and who herself has a website/blog thingy with the word “abnormal” in it.

  Ignoring the “a transgender” faux pas, the issue was with people not identifying as cis and, indeed, rejecting that as an identity. Just so we’re clear, I agree with Nelson that PHB is in trouble, but wanted to point that out.

• Autumn returned on July 2nd, posting I Have An “Angry Inch”. She points out where she “began seeing the terms cisgender and cissexual as weapons in the Pam’s House Blend threads,” and how it has turned her off to the words in general. This post also began a larger discussion on how discussions should be held on the blend.
• July 2 also saw Keeva post The post Autumn Sandeen does not want me to make. In it, she posts an email from Autumn about her previous post (see above) “I have an ‘Angry Inch’”. Keeva follows up on it soon thereafter, with more information about her communication with Pam and Autumn.
• On July 4, Lisa posted A Point about Cis, reiterating that
  

  Cis is not an insult, it’s not a slur. It is, however, as much of an identity as trans is, even if most cis people never stop to think about the fact that they’re cis, that they just assume that being what they are (”I’m just a person, I’m not cis/white/het/able-bodied!”) is the normal way to be.

  Being cis doesn’t make anyone a bad person. Having privilege doesn’t make anyone a bad person. When you sit back and you think “that person who’s calling me cis is saying I have privilege and thus I AM A TERRIBLE PERSON” consider that the trans person who says that may be white, heterosexual, middle-class, able-bodied, or otherwise privileged. That trans person who says that may even have come to terms with hir own privileges, and does not take it personally when her privilege is pointed out to her.

• Also on July 4, Autum posted What, In The Grand Scheme Of Things, Is Important?. In it, she says that the meta-discussion has distracted and is distracting people from more important issues, such as ongoing trials and legislation affecting trans men and women.
• Keeva responded, calling Pam out for connecting Keeva’s online and offline personas. Keeva has continued to post since then, and it seems like she and Pam/Autumn are now sniping back and forth every so often…

Dear lord.

So, after all that, what do I think??

How kind of you to ask.

Ultimately, I think Mattie sums it up with Cis the Third. As I said before, you should go read it. She’s sarcastic and sharp (both plusses, in my book) so if you agree that cis is offensive, you probably won’t find Mattie’s post particularly enlightening. That said, she’s still right.

However, more broadly, I find myself continuing to go back to my recent post about thinking before speaking. It does seem like Aravosis (remember him? from the first post way back in June?) should apologize, and is transphobic. (Or, at least, a jerk.) But, rereading the initial comments that sparked things, I find a lot of people making accusations and assumptions that I simply can’t imagine them saying face-to-face. From there, everything kind of snowballed, with few people wanting to A) admit they were rude, even if they were right, B) appolgoize for being rude in the first place.

I don’t want to oversimplify the situation, or to say, “Had everyone been nicer, this never would have happened.” It does seem like there is a substantive disagreement over whether or not to use cis(sexual/gender) to describe people. I happen to agree with the pro-cis-usage camp, as I think it’s an important word and concept for discussing gender, identity, privilege, and their intersections. But that doesn’t mean it should be impossible to hold a civil conversation with someone who disagrees with me.

Ultimately, I’m disappointed with both ‘sides’ of the issue – those agreeing with PHB and those thinking PHB handled things poorly. I do think Autumn did a poor job attempting to get the discussion back on track, as did Pam, and ultimately much (but not all!) of the origins of this blowing into a multi-blog storm lie with their actions. Taking a stern tone can work well in a face-to-face argument, but rarely seems to in online discussion. I’d wager this is because the perceived cost of matching the other in tone and “volume,” so to speak, is minimal. That is, if I literally get into a screaming match with someone, it’s much more emotionally and physically dangerous than getting into a figurative screaming match online.

Likewise, there were members of the trans community – in blog posts and discussions – who assumed Autumn, Pam, and others were acting with ill-will or attempting to be overly conciliatory to their (cis) readers, and acted rudely as a result.

To be perfectly clear, I’m not attempting to absolve either side of blame, to try and avoid taking sides, or to pretend that I can float above the fray. I agree with those who said ‘cis’ is an entirely appropriate and acceptable word. People who dislike it’s use have every right to request it not be used to apply to them specifically, as an identity, but don’t get to bow out of their cis privilege simply because it makes them feel icky. (I don’t get to bow out of my white privilege either, even though I don’t have a strong “white identity.”) And Autumn, in my opinion, unintentionally fueled the flames by attempting to cut off conversation rather than further it.

But life (like gender!) is rarely black-and-white. I’m also not thrilled with the level of discourse by some of the trans men and women in the comments through the above links, and while saying “You’re being hostile” is often simply used as a derailing technique, that doesn’t mean it’s never true, or that it’s impossible to both be right and rude.

That doesn’t mean I’ve never flown off the handle in an online discussion, or that I won’t ever again. And it doesn’t mean people should continue to call out obnoxious and X-phobic privilege when they see it. But I hope everyone will take a deep breath and count to ten before posting in the (inevitable) next round of controversy. ]]> http://fridaythang.com/blog/2009/07/08/are-we-really-doing-this-again-or-the-great-trans-blogging-shakeup-of-2009-pt-2/feed/ 14 http://fridaythang.com/blog/2009/06/29/take-a-deep-breath-and-count-to-ten/ http://fridaythang.com/blog/2009/06/29/take-a-deep-breath-and-count-to-ten/#comments Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:00:40 +0000 Rebecca http://fridaythang.com/blog/?p=810 I’ve updated the previous post, Backlog of Links, with a more accurate description with how Kate Bornstein & S Bear Bergman are handling the response to their use of ‘tranny’ in their call for submissions to a new, updated Gender Outlaw. Ultimately, my summary (“the CFS used ‘tranny’ and Bear wasn’t willing to engage in a discussion about whether that was OK”) was really unfair to both he and Kate. As I said in the update to the previous post, life is often more complicated than it first seems and my assumptions about his behavior were totally off-base.

I wanted to take an extra post, though, to more fully go over my thoughts on how the Internet can (negatively) affect communication. In this case, I mean ways my communication was handled poorly, not anyone else’s.

This is not the first time I’ve written about a situation where my initial response was one thing and, ultimately, the correct response would have been A) contacting the person directly and not via intentionally or (more often) unintentionally passive-aggressive online postings, and (ultimately more important) B) giving the other person the benefit of the doubt.

In most situations, that would allow everything to be cleared up much more amicably.

That isn’t to say the correct response is never to get up on a high horse. Sometimes people cross a line to an extreme where the only appropriate response is calling them on it in an extreme fashion. But I’d wager that should never – or, at least, very rarely – be the first response.

I’d like to think I’ve learned my lesson from this, but the Internet is seductive in that it lets you think, “Oh, the person I’m writing about will never read this!” Likewise, even if you’re directly writing to someone and you know they’ll read it, the Internet allows you to forget that the other person is actually a person, and not just the site/blog/etc you’re posting to. Internet escalations, in my experience, happen much faster than offline, simply because it’s so easy to say the first thing that comes to your mind, without reflecting on how it’ll be received by others.

At the very least, I’ll try harder to keep that in mind going forward.

But first, lets go back in time a month or so and look at a similar discussion on trans issues which happened at Feministing and Feministe in mid April.

Here’s the timeline, as best as I can reconstruct it. It’s worth noting that I was not making a good habit of reading comments on these blogs, so didn’t really realize there was a controversy brewing until it was already in full swing. As always, I imagine there are other blogs with other posts that I missed – feel free to let me know about any of ‘em and I’ll try to update the timeline.

On April 1, Miriam at Feministing posted about a Focus on the Family FUD-inducing email about “Men in Women’s Bathrooms.” Likewise, on April 3, Cara at Feministe posted about an essay written by a cis man about things he learned from a trans student. In both cases, the posts themselves were fine, addressing trans issues with respect. However, in both cases, the comments drifted and became transphobic and/or wildly off topic. When Voz and GallingGala called people out on this at Feministe, they were told, “Not all discussions that crop up will be concerns to all women. Isn’t that bound to happen?”

On April 6, Lucy at Catspaw posted It’s Always About Cis Women, calling out Feminsting and Feministe on their inability foster trans-friendly spaces, ending her post with, “But maybe the Feministe commenter is right. Any discussion that crops up about trans issues is bound to not include the concerns of trans folk. It is always about the cis women. With a few (wonderful) exceptions, it seems as though cis women can’t be bothered to consider any experience outside their own. At least not the cis women found at major online feminist sites. Way to include all women.”

On April 7, Queen Emily at Questioning Transphobia posted Bathroom Panic, it’s totally feminist, calling out those in the Feministing thread on being transphobic.

Finally, on April 9, Voz Latina posted a call to boycott Feministing and Feminste saying that bloggers should “send a message that hurting trans women is NOT in fact feministing.”

Still with me? Good.

On April 14, Cara responded with her post, On Cis Supremacy, Feminism, and Feministe. She basically said that trans women had a right to be “absolutely furious,” that she should have stepped in earlier, and that she planed “to take full responsibility if [a similar situation] happens [again] and to not expect second chances.” The discussion in the comments was pretty positive, and began to turn towards how to keep future conversations on topic and not allow people to derail them with offtopic posts, trans 101 questions, or transphobic speech.

Then, on April 15, Miriam likewise posted In Response to the Dialogue, where she acknowledged what had been happening and promised a followup post with comments enabled. On April 20, she indeed posted Gender discussions at Feministing, which explicitly called for a conversation on how to discuss trans issues at Feministing. In the interim between the two posts, a number of Feministing community bloggers wrote posts worth reading, which are linked to from Miriam’s post on April 20. Miriam’s post garnered 350 comments, most of which tried to further the discussion, but comments almost instantly turned (once again) to trans 101 questions, offtopic discussion, and transphobic posts. Moderators did step in and stem this, so I do have to give kudos where they’re due, but it sucks that it continued to happen in the first place. (I want to specifically call attention to LenaD’s comment, which I agree with, calling for better trans 101 resources and for moderators to be specific as to why they are deleting or moderating a comment.)

So now what?

In the end, I’m upset about how the discussion at Feministing happened following my question and Proffesor Foxy’s response. First, as Caoimhe noted in the comments to my previous post on this subject, it would have been nice if Prof F had quoted some trans people she’d talked with. It’s entirely possible the “people” she spoke with are trans, and simply threw up their hands in confusion at my question, but I find that difficult to believe. Likewise, I naively thought that, after the huge discussion at Feministing about gender and trans issues, people would be able to hold their shit together and comment on a trans-specific question without veering wildly off topic.

I also don’t think any moderators stepped in to do anything about it. Indeed, Prof F said she was going to leave up a transphobic comment to provide “a great example of people on feministing responding to these kinds of comments.” Screw that.

I realize this is all in direct opposition to how I ended my previous post, where I said that “I want to reiterate that the experience of reading (and responding to) all these comments has been more positive than negative – it’s reassured me that, on the whole, Feministing’s community is able to be supportive when discussing trans issues. But not 100%, and not without veering offtopic along the way.”

I think I have to take that back. Feministing’s community was able to (almost across the board) not be transphobic. That’s definitely worth something, and is reassuring. But I’m not convinced that’s the same thing as being supportive.

I’m going to try and continue to participate in the Feministing community but today was an eye-opener. I’d like to think I could have appreciated how offtopic and transphobic discussion can be silencing and remove the possibility of a positive community experience without having it directly apply to something about myself. But I sure as hell can see all of that when it is around a question I asked, and a discussion I prompted.

-R

And from the resposne:

Part of this process is also going to have to be exploring your new body and your new desires and not judging yourself during this process. You can even think of it as a burden or as an extra gift during transition. Unlike cisgendered women, who typically have to get used to things on their body, you are going to be able to explore things on your body that you very much want: the breasts, the hips you will likely develop. Enjoy it!

It’s definitely worth reading, but what’s a lot more interesting is the comments…

I’m going to say that, overall, the comments are really positive. There’s a lot of good links, and good advice, and general well-wishings. As I said, you should check it out. However, two things are worth noting. First, the obliviousness of those putting out transphobic comments (or, much worse, their intentional ill-will). Second, how quickly a post explicitly on trans sexuality got sidelined into a meta-discussion about how the discussion should happen, and how those posting transphobic/offtopic comments should be handled.

Concerning the first issue, there was really only one explicitly transphobic post:

butterflywings said: ‘Having boobs is fun!’…uh…blech.
Wait till strangers feel entitled to grab them or comment on their size. I know they are ‘funbags’ to you, as you were male and still carry around misogyny.
*Waits for comment to be deleted as being ‘transphobic’…sigh.*
Yep, those poor trans people gotta run off in a sulk because some commenters didn’t agree with them…

I responded to the post at Feministing and don’t need to cover that same ground again. There were some other posts that were somewhat offtopic, but not really worth mentioning, and one that was read as transphobic by some commenters, but the poster came back and clarified what she meant. But I  want to highlight butterflywings’ post and note that people are still oblivious to saying transphobic things (or, even worse, know it’s transphobic and say it anyway), even after extensive discussion at Feministing and elsewhere on how to conduct yourself when discussing a topic concerning a minority group (in this case, trans issues), from the perspective of one granted social/cultural privilege by not being a member of that group.

More frustrating is how quickly the comments devolved into a meta-discussion on how to hold the discussion. As I said, I’m still glad I submitted the question and that it was chosen to be posted, and I really am getting a lot out of Prof F’s response and further comments from others. But, by my count, between one half and two thirds of the comments are either directly off-topic, or responding to someone else’s off-topic comment with further off-topic discussion.

Now, in a topic like this, it’s hard to know what ‘offtopic’ really means – I do appreciate comments from cis men and women on their perspective, and I don’t want it to come across that I think comments from someone who isn’t trans (or is commenting about cis experiences) is inherently offtopic. It’s not. Likewise, I really enjoyed posts from the people who used their own experiences to make sense of my question, and come up with analagous situations. Obviously there is an issue with people being dismissive of trans experiences, but I’ve never had a problem with people acknowledging the reality that trans men and women don’t hold a monopoly on issues surrounding sex and gender. Indeed, I’m eager to hear about the experiences of others – even those who aren’t trans! – so that I might better understand my own.

But (and you knew there was going to be a ‘but’) after all the discussion on how to discuss trans issues, I’m a little disappointed in some members of the Feministing community. Again, I’m really getting a lot out of this discussion surrounding my original question. I can’t stress that enough, and I’ve been trying to go through and leave responses – both agreeing and disagreeing – with comments that particularly struck me. And I’m really trying not to say, “You’re not trans, so you can’t comment/don’t deserve to be educated on trans issues/etc.” But I don’t know that this thread was the appropriate place for a meta-discussion on the number of comments left by others or Feministing’s place in the trans community, and it certainly wasn’t the place for accusations about my own misogyny (or the extensive discussion which followed on why that’s transphobic).

And, damn it all, I don’t know how to handle those things. I don’t know the answer. As much as I’d like everyone to get a clue and not post those things in the first place, when someone does post something off-topic and/or transphobic, I’d rather have people respond than just ignore it. And I’m somewhat uncomfortable with deleting comments that are off-topic and/or transphobic unless they’re really inappropriate, because they may be of value to someone for some other reason. (Ideally, some other reason above and beyond a meta-discussion about their value or lack thereof!)

Likewise, while I really appreciated and enjoyed Prof F’s response to my original comment, I’m frustrated by her later post containing the line, “While [the above comments] are nasty, transphobic, and manipulative, the response to them has been so right on that I am leaving it as a great example of people on feministing responding to these kinds of comments.” Again, I don’t know what the right answer is, even though I don’t think this is it. Is the answer deletion? Of just the comment, or the comment and its replies? Some sort of ‘asshole’ alert? As one poster suggested, dissemvoweling the post? (Removing all the vowels so if you want to read it you can, but you have to go out of your way to understand the negative language.) I really don’t know.

This is all made more complicated because people aren’t going to be monitoring comments 24/7 with imediate response time. If a comment does stay up and generates multiple responses, is it worth closing down that entire thread to force staying on-topic?

I guess I’m asking a lot more questions than I am providing answers. And I’m guilty of being drawn into the meta-discussion about how to hold a discussion. I think my suggestion would be that Feministing come up with stock replacement text, along the lines of, “This comment is offtopic and/or offensive speech, and was not appropriate for this thread. Information on how to stay ontopic and respectful, and why this post may have been offtopic or offensive, may be found here.”  (“Here” would be a link with that information and, perhaps, examples of specific posts and why they were offtopic or offensive.) The text would be put in place of the commenter’s post, and no replies would be allowed to the replacement, but replies and discussion, including “I don’t understand why my comment was offensive/offtopic,” would be allowed on  the linked-to information page. That would seem to satisfy everyone: those who are simply seeking knowledge and not attempting to be offtopic, those who are (intentionally or unintentionally) offensive, and those who crave the meta-discussion about what is or isn’t on-topic…

Again, I want to reiterate that the experience of reading (and responding to) all these comments has been more positive than negative – it’s reassured me that, on the whole, Feministing’s community is able to be supportive when discussing trans issues. But not 100%, and not without veering offtopic along the way.

-R