The instance seems to be mostly right wing trolls. I know defederating is unpopular but I don't think much is to be lost in this case and it can save the mods some headaches.
Edit: the response on exploding-heads.com to my reporting of transphobia. Courtesy of the "second in command"
I'm curious if you have examples given that seems pretty against what I've seen of Beehaw so far.
Not saying you're wrong, it's just not something I've seen yet.
Take a look at this thread. I commented trying to encourage a healthy direction, but giving this guy proper actual scientific/medical info that would help him live a healthy life would almost certainly get you removed/banned from beehaw, and the rest of the comments are encouraging something that will harm this person long term.
This happens a lot in more "progressive" lgbtqia-style spaces, because a lot of their ideology is fundamentally something that can, will, and does harm a lot of people. Look up "detransitioners" as a good example of things going wrong.
To me, and other people who are not aligned with their worldview, it's obvious that there is harm in the ideology being pushed, and by censoring those who have a difference of view, or who try to stick to proper medical science, you end up funnelling people into paths that end up harming them.
Of course, others will disagree and think there's no harm in this (that's why they're commenting as they do). But I'm someone who's seen it first hand many times and so I simply can't get on board with that way of doing things.
It's not overtly "hateful", rather the opposite: toxic positivity. But still harmful. But my point here isn't "you should actually defederate from beehaw". My point is that what people think is "harmful" differs depending on your views and beliefs.
If I tell this guy, hey you have a medical condition called transvestism, have gyneandromorphophilia, and are at risk of further developing dual role transvestism and gender identity disorder, is that "hateful"? Beehaw probably thinks it is. But IMO that is simply helping and informing.
I was very interested to see examples, as I do not like to judge without knowledge, and I am a very firm believer that toxic positivity is harmful.
That being said, I saw no toxic positivity in that thread or harmfully "positive" comments. Instead, what I saw were many people encouraging OP to explore the ideas thoughtfully while keeping in mind that no one can tell them if they are trans except themselves. I saw encouragement to seek out therapy instead of doing this alone, encouragement to consider the ideas of doing mundane things as a woman (such as doing taxes, grocery shopping, commuting, etc) and see if it still felt right (instead of just the attraction or sexual aspects), reminders that the whole concept is a spectrum and not to get hung up on labels and instead focus on actions that feel right.
I fail to see how any of that is toxic positivity.
The only worrying comment I saw was yours, and even moreso because you indicated that you were biting your tongue because of the community's rules. You used negative slang terminology to indicate this person merely has a fetish and that this big bad world is too confusing so OP should look to the past when these things were handled more simply "scientifically", and insinuated they were only going to blindly follow the answer given to them about whether or not they are trans instead of explore their identity given the info from the thread.
It's the equivalent of encouraging someone with anorexia that they should lose weight and eat less.
Anorexia is actively harming the individual, exploring gender identity and expression is not. Additionally, the commenters (multiple!) told OP that they should seek out therapy in order to actively explore these ideas.
encouraging transition without a medical condition that needs it, or encouraging transvestism, is indeed actively harming the individual. we've seen this time and time again. I've spoken with many people who got on hormone therapy because they were "encouraged" by communities like this, only to end up being harmed by it, regretting it, detransitioning, and being permanently scarred for life.
To say these individuals were not harmed is just objectively wrong.
Again, literally NO ONE in that thread encouraged transition. The only thing being encouraged was that OP had to explore to figure it out themselves and that no one could tell them if they were trans except themselves.
No, you haven't. Because that doesn't exist except in people's made up anger-fantasies in their heads when they try to come up with more reasons to get upset at trans-allies for.
"Because that doesn't exist"
Lets not get carried away here. Search "Detransition story" on YouTube, and do not silence or deny the experience of these people.
I can support LGBTQ people but not necessarily support every fringe ideology or practice that the LGBTQ movement is getting excited about and ramming down the pipe with the "hate" hammer poised to crush the slightest opposition voice. The idea that we have all the science and study we need to ethically approach chemically and surgically modifying children is more than a little arrogant and premature. It's okay to get a few more clinical studies and history under our belt. And listen to legitimate contrary voices in the medical, scientific, and LGBTQ community itself to see if there is merit to their concern, have answers for people who end up on the bad side of transition stories.
I am more than willing to listen to their experiences - as I very clearly explained to @otome-chan. She can explain her experience without claiming it to be 'speaking to a gender therapist means you will be urged into transitioning'
A) NO ONE is surgically modifying children. Ever. That does not happen.
B) puberty blockers have been used for various medical issues since the 70s, and those who have gone off of them have gone on to live absolutely happy lives, having biological children in their own uteruses or with their own sperm, or whatever other talking points people are trying to cram in trying to say puberty blockers cause, no long term effects whatsoever. Is over 50 years of scientific data enough for you?
See you're pretty much proving my point lol. Instead of actually hearing people out, you just start pushing your own view calling me a liar, even though I have not lied. Why do this?
One person I know personally and regularly chat with is a teen who got on puberty blockers. it made their life a living hell, so they went off of them for the time being and are interested in pursuing hormones once older. It happened because these sorts of spaces push and encourage people to do such things.
I myself was harmed from the misinformation peddled by these communities. It did a number on my mental health, and messed up my hormone therapy for a long while before I figured out why there was a problem (because I was lied to by these communities).
I've spoken with several people who have gotten SRS, have permanent scars, regret the surgery due to butcher jobs because they were encouraged to rush into it with an unknown unvetted surgeon, rather than being cautious and careful.
I don't know what your experience in the LGBT community is, but to say there aren't people being harmed by this ideology is simply wrong. I lived it. My friends have lived it. The people I've spoken with have lived it. You simply can't lie to me. Maybe you don't see it, but we do.
Now, there are valid reasons to transition, and medical transition does help certain demographics. Different conditions require different treatment.
But this denialism of people's actual lived experience and pushing everyone to transition if they even question it, is doing actual real world harm.
You are acting as if I'm some hateful person or just "upset at nothing". No. I'm someone who has seen and experienced the harm that comes from this stuff.
You may disagree or have your own views, but to unilaterally say that any view other than your own is "harmful" just demonstrates the point I'm making here. In that what is "harmful" is ultimately different depending on one's beliefs.
I think what beehaw is doing is harmful. You clearly do not. So when you say "we should defederate with instances causing harm" to me that says we should defederate with beehaw. So why is your view of "harmful" biased for, while others' view of "harmful" is not?
I took a look at detransitioners like you suggested a few comments up. Did you know that in a study of people who've undergone transgender surgery, only 1% expressed regret? Do you see why your statements seem unbelievable? If you claim to have personally spoken to multiple folks who've regretted going through the transitioning process, you've come across a very rare group of people.
Yes, very few people who have gotten surgery historically expressed regret. Though you need to be careful when looking at numbers like that, because many of those studies were done prior to 2015, back when more caution and care was in place for the medical treatment process. Nowadays that is not the case, and so such a study no longer applies.
When people who actually need the care get it, yes, it's beneficial and rarely harmful. But when people who don't need the care get it? it ruins lives.
For reference, the study in question was done in 2021. I believe these numbers would still be valid.
Well no. It's a meta-study, so it's pulling in data from older studies. If you look at the stuff they're using much of it is from pre-2015. Example: Cohen-Kettenis et al, 1997. Or Blanchard et al, 1989.
Likewise, with newer studies, it'll likely be covering all transition cases, which doesn't really help give insight as to whether the surgery is helping for a particular demographic, only whether the current prescription approach is working overall.
Fortunately, the study shows the causes of regret that the patients cited. So let's look, yeah? Here's some reasons from pre-2015 studies:
Mostly it's either about poor surgical results, or societal acceptance. A few were misdiagnosed.
And for post-2015:
Mostly they are due to rushing into things, misdiagnosis, improper treatment for the issue, etc.
I imagine many more of these "true regret" and "rushed into it" along with "didn't do what I wanted" regrets will happen.
The reality is that regret is predictable. We know quite well what causes people to regret and detransition. It's not a mystery. We know that misdiagnosis, improper medical treatment, people rushing into things, and giving people false expectations are what lead to regret and inevitably detransition.
What are the things that beehaw and other lgbtqia groups are doing? pushing misdiagnosis, improper medical treatment, having people rush into things, and giving people false expectations.
I'm guessing that when you categorize by biological status/situation you get a near 100% regret rate for non-transsexul/non-transvestite. probably a significant regret rate for transvestites. and a near nonexistent regret rate for transsexuals.
We're getting off track though. again my point here isn't to debate the trans topic, but to show that different people see different things as "harmful".
Your do realize that people can "rush into things" against their therapist's opinion as well, correct? Decide "obviously this is the solution, time to book a surgeon. Oh, well, I can't afford that good one, so I'll go to this other one over here" all the while the therapist is trying to say "wait! We're no where near getting to a diagnosis!”
Yeah. and these sorts of transgender/lgbtqia communities like on beehaw pretty much encourage that.
I literally saw none of that - not just from the post you linked, but elsewhere. Do you have a link actually encouraging that?
I am not denying that there are people that have detransitioned for various reasons (though it is no where near the percentage the ridiculous, far-right 'reports' claim it to be), and I do not deny that there people who have had surgeries that have not gone as planned ("botched", or unpleasant, or left them not feeling whole as they expected, or many more reasons). I'm also not denying that people that went on therapies ending up not becoming the person they expected and still not feeling whole.
What I AM denying is that there exist "harmful communities" that are needlessly "encouraging" transitions to those that don't need it. Instead, what I believe is happening - and it is very important that I am saying believe, because there is a very wide range of things happening in these instances - is that those seeking out these treatments are looking for a "solution" instead of realizing that they are going to have to go through a journey to discover who they are. They are in pain, anguish, confused, and are looking for something to make them whole. In any solutions involving the mind, such as depression, anxiety, OCD, etc, it takes multiple tries or combinations of treatments to what works, and there's no reason to think gender identity and expression would be any different. As you can see in the comments to the thread you linked, multiple commenters suggested not getting hung up on labels and to explore multiple options. I believe those that you are referencing got hung up on the first "solution" deciding that must be it and then (even subconsciously) deciding the community was the one that "encouraged" them into it when it ended up not being what felt right.
Yes. granted, I haven't been in beehaws groups very long, but they look to me as other progressive lgbtqia/transgender groups do.
To me, people should be able to hear all sides, all points of view, all experiences, and share beliefs, medical science, etc. This way, someone can make up their own mind about things. The reason I say beehaw's way of doing things is harmful isn't only that people push a particular direction, but because they discourage any alternative points of view (declaring it "harmful").
Preventing this person from hearing any other point of view than "yeah totally go explore crossdressing and speak with a gender therapist who will likely urge you to transition" is harmful. Even if that's the right thing for this person.
Ultimately though this is getting into the weeds of interactions in lgbtqia communities, and kinda getting away from the point which is: what someone considers harmful can vary wildly. To me, harmful means someone being harmed physically, mentally, medically, or attacking someone with slurs or harassing a community by antagonizing them. to beehaw, "harmful" clearly means "sharing information that goes against their beliefs" and it seems many people in this thread also think a mere disagreement is "harmful".
And that's my point. Defederating all who disagree quickly leads to echochambers which can reinforce harmful behaviors by failing to be exposed to alternative points of view. And to defederate based on "harm" is unclear. different people think different things are harmful.
Some people think all porn is harmful. Should every instance then defederate from any instance that allows nsfw content?
speak with a gender therapist who will likely urge you to transition
THIS^^^^ is where YOU are harmful. NO therapist will EVER urge someone to transition for whom it is not the right option, and to say so is demonstrably incorrect. This is an outright fallacy created by the anti-trans movement.
Everyone in that thread was clearly open to the OP being exposed to any and all options. However, claiming that a gender therapist will likely urge them to transition IS HARMFUL because it it's untrue, and I am ok with those thoughts not being allowed on that instance.
I truly feel for you that you've been hurt and are still finding your way to happiness, but that is simply not what happens in gender therapy. You don't simply "have information to share that goes against their beliefs", you want to spread misinformation under the guise of it being "medical/scientific" and "sharing all sides". If this is what you have actually gone through and your lived experience, I truly feel for you that you feel you were misled or urged, but please focus on finding happiness instead of continuing this dangerous rhetoric
THIS^^^^ is where YOU are harmful. NO therapist will EVER urge someone to transition for whom it is not the right option, and to say so is demonstrably incorrect. This is an outright fallacy created by the anti-trans movement.
Everyone in that thread was clearly open to the OP being exposed to any and all options. However, claiming that a gender therapist will likely urge them to transition IS HARMFUL because it it's untrue, and I am ok with those thoughts not being allowed on that instance.
I truly feel for you that you've been hurt and are still finding your way to happiness, but that is simply not what happens in gender therapy. You don't simply "have information to share that goes against their beliefs", you want to spread misinformation under the guise of it being "medical/scientific" and "sharing all sides". If this is what you have actually gone through and your lived experience, I truly feel for you that you feel you were misled or urged, but please focus on finding happiness instead of continuing this dangerous rhetoric.
This actually isn't the case. I've spoken with probably 6 therapists and psychiatrists at this point and not one actually bothered to be careful about diagnosis. In California it's literally illegal for a medical professional to suggest someone might not need to transition.
And yet I experienced it? And not even just for trans stuff, but medical stuff as a whole. There's way too many doctors out there ready to push prescription medications when simply asked. The "transgender" and lgbtqia communities actively suggest lying to therapists as well to get on meds despite any warnings they might have. I was told this directly by lgbtqia communities. that I should lie to my therapist to get on hormones. That actually happened.
Except it's not untrue? I and others have experienced just that.
And yet it is? I can't say I've ever experienced any pushback from doctors in the 7 years I've been seeing them. not a single "hold on lets slow down and do things right" just all "full speed ahead". It's shocking and appalling.
And here again you prove my point. what someone thinks is "misinformation" will differ from person to person.
I think your rhetoric is dangerous and you think mine is dangerous. Which is literally my point.
Literally everything in this comment is YOUR EXPERIENCE, at least your perception of it. If you were to go around saying "here is what I experienced" that would be absolutely FINE! But that's not what you are doing, you are saying "speak with a gender therapist who will likely urge you to transition" is objective fact. Don't even share the stories of those you've spoken with as lived experience because those are second hand stories and therefore unreliable. I'm not saying that the people you've spoken with can't be trusted, but the mere nature of the fact that the are secondhand means they are coming from an unreliable narrator.
You are literally incorrect about that law in California - I live in California, and that is one thousand percent not a law, and I know the law to which you are referring that got distorted over social media and you didn't even get that correct and twisted even further to fit your narrative.
No one in those comments said anything about lying to therapist's to get on hormones. Meds were never mentioned except in people's anecdotes. The only things commenters were encouraging OP to do were to think things through. And no, misinformation does not change from person to person. There are things that are factual and things that are not. You went from stating items as facts in the being to later revealing them as your anecdotal experience, which may simply be your perceived experience.
What exactly about my comments do you find harmful? I explained, multiple times, that your anecdotal experience does not equate to the entirety of the profession or the community.
I'm making the point that what someone sees as "harmful "or "misinformation" varies from person to person due to differing beliefs. And that to defederate over it is to shut down conversation, and declare a single position and prevent anyone else from speaking or discussing it.
It spun into a trans debate and I really don't care to have one @.@
Now you are mixing words. "Open discussion" "misinformation" and "harmful" play very differently in this discussion.
No one, throughout this thread, the one on beehaw, or anyone discussing EH or on EH has expressed an interest in turning down Open Discussion, in fact it's been more than encouraged.
Misinformation, however, does not vary from person to person. There are things that are objectively true and objectively untrue. Someone coming up with some other "truth" does not make it also true, it makes it misinformation if they start spreading it. There can be multiple truths or things that have no truth but are beliefs, but if something is false but is being spread while called a truth it is Misinformation. That doesn't mean if Person A is talking about X and Person B is talking about Y that they both get to call the other person's thing misinformation just because they aren't talking about the same thing.
And misinformation is not always going to be harmful. Sometimes it will be silly (April fool's day news casts) and sometimes it will be stupid, but once it crosses that line into harmful is when it needs to be controlled.
And yes, multiple people might have different definitions of harmful. But this is where we need to take the community's agreement into account. You know all of those Terms of Service you always just check the box without reading? You agree to behave certain ways with those. If website is a company or a restaurant finds that you are not behaving in a way that you agreed to by joining, they can decide you no longer belong. This is what many of the comments in this thread were talking about - that sh.itjust.works and kbin.social both have bigotry listed as disagreeable terms that they deem as harmful to their communities.
So it not about having an issue with open discussion, is it?
@goat
@Otome-chan@kbin.social
I think I have a bead on what you're saying now.
I can't really say I agree that gently supporting someone to explore a side of themselves they are coming to grips with is the same as advocating for the eradication of trans people...
I see it like this: the more these far right types are isolated in echochambers, the more extreme they will get, and long term that is harmful. if, instead, we foster polite and civil discussions, we can come to a mutual understanding, change minds, change hearts, and actually do something that benefits all, and help everyone get closer to the actual truth of the matter.
The mod in the post clearly was speaking against overt hate (slurs and the like). And I think that's the sort of thing that should be stamped out and discouraged. But a disagreement of views? If you don't wanna see someone's differing opinion, why should that mean you're gonna prevent everyone else from talking to them? Just block yeah?
The example that beehaw defederated over makes sense. There were people posting nsfw content in sfw communities, off topic, that was clearly meant to shock, harm, etc. it makes sense.
But have these exploding-head guys posted off topic? did they spam? did they shout slurs everywhere? or did they simply disagree with you? If it's a matter of disagreement, I don't see why the strong action of defederation is needed. Surely we can talk things out?
The existence of people who detransition is often brought up in anti-trans circles as a criticism of gender-affirming care. However, the actual number of trans people who even just regret getting medical treatments is like 0.5%. Versus something like 14% for medical surgeries in general. And this is including trans people who regret it for social or economic reasons.