this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
148 points (95.1% liked)

FediLore + Fedidrama

2874 readers
23 users here now

Rules

  1. Any drama must be posted as an observer, you cannot post drama that you are involved with.
  2. When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.
  3. The poster must have a credible post and comment history before submitting a piece of history. This is to avoid sock-puppetry and witch hunts.

The usual instance-wide rules also apply.


Chronicle the life and tale of the fediverse (+ matrix)

Largely a sublemmy about capturing drama, from fediverse spanning drama to just lemmy drama.

Includes lore like how a instance got it's name, how an instance got defederated, how an admin got doxxed, fedihistory etc

(New) This sub's intentions is to an archive/newspaper, as in preferably don't get into fights with each other or the ppl featured in the drama

Tags: fediverse news, lemmy news, lemmyverse

Partners:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/25042034

This post is "FYI only" for blahaj lemmy members. It is not a debate, and is not intended for non blahaj lemmy users to weigh in and offer opinions.

I recently received reports of a feddit.uk user espousing transphobia. Specifically, this was a feddit.uk user refusing to use the word cis, repeating the "adult human female" dog whistle, and claiming that trans women are not women. I approached a member of the feddit.uk admin team and raised my concerns and sought clarification of their stance on posts like this, where the transphobia is mostly dogwhistles, and "civil disagreement" on the validity of trans folk.

I was told by the feddit.uk admin that their preferred response is this kind of transphobia is to "sort it out through discussion and voting". However, the comments in question are currently more upvoted than downvoted, and little "sorting out" has occurred. The posts remain in place.

At this point, the admin stopped responding to my messages despite being active elsewhere on lemmy. When it became clear they were ignoring my messages and had no intention of removing the posts in question, I made the decision to defederate the instance.

I know some folk agree with the feddit.uk admins approach of pushback through discussion and voting, but this instance is not designed to be that kind of space. Blahaj lemmy is meant to be a place where we can avoid the rampant transphobia universally visible on nearly every other social media platform, and where we can exist without needing to debate our right to do so.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Idk just saying that transwomen and cis women are different doesn't seem transphobic in and of itself, especially since the person seems to be saying that they should have the same rights now

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Idk just saying that transwomen and cis women are different doesn’t seem transphobic in and of itself

Agreed - but the crucial point here is that the comment says that trans women are not women, which is a stance many would consider to be transphobia. I think the proper way to say it is that trans women and cis women are obviously not the same thing, but both are women.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is the exact semantic they are talking about in the post. You just have different semantic parent objects. You want trans/cis with parent of woman, they used Transwoman/woman with parent as person. They are semantically equivalent.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

They are not equivalent - one semantic assigns trans women under the category of women (not transphobic) while the other semantic assigns trans women as separate from the category of women (which many would say is transphobic).

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago

The whole "I'm not saying 'cis'" is the biggest red flag. Typically in their mind it's because cis means "normal" instead of just being an adjective. It's like the people that say they have nothing against the gays (TM) but they don't like it shoved in their faces. Nothing against them but don't exist near me energy.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's a very polite post on the surface, but do note that they refer to trans women as "it". I think they're being very polite because they know that saying "I think trans women are just deluded men and I don't want to respect those things" doesn't go as well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They don't. Read the text carefully. The use of "it" doesn't seem to be in relation to trans women.

I agree it confusing, but the use of it seems to be more general. Note how the rest of the text doesn't use such a construction.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Question ya wanna ask yourself is "WHY do they wanna differentiate between the two?"

What is the purpose of that distinction?

Is it medical care? 'Cos specific considerations are the only nice reason i can think of why you'd need to do that. Can think of a lot of nasty reasons why though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

just saying that transwomen and cis women are different doesn't seem transphobic in and of itself,

Right, I agree, but that's not what they're saying. They're saying women and transwomen aren't the same.

As in, a rephrase of "transwomen aren't women".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Interesting. Totally not how I understand the text. I read it as, rephrase:

(cis) women and trans women aren't the same, but both should be treated like women with respect

And when I read it like that, you all seem to be overreacting to me.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's a pretty common dogswhistle. The problem is the literal statement itself, that is not wrong in a vacuum.

The problem is that people who think trans women deserve zero rights keep using phrases like this to justify discrimination and hatred, and to funnel people into a position of hatred.

The words, just as defined in the dictionary, are true. But with all the social cargo they carry, it becomes a very insulting and hateful thing.

And that itself helps the haters, because people like you will say "but... This is true, why are you acting like this?". The answer is because the other 99% of people who make these claims absolutely deserve such a reaction.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Thank you for the explanation, but by your logic any deviation from unconditional, thoughtless, unquestioning support is a dogwhistling hateful statement?

By reacting like the people in comments did they're alienating anyone unwilling to follow that group blindly.

Look, I'm queer, from Poland, I marched, donated, volunteered and housed alphabetical people in need, and I can see the societal pendulum swinging back right because people are tired of being pushed down for thinking or downright bullied.