hah, this one is funny!
Also, echoing @[email protected]’s comment below (unfortunately you can’t sticky comments on lemmy): comments that express hate towards any group are a violation of instance guidelines. BE NICE.
Mod here. Just want to openly and unequivocally state… I will remove your comment if you’re transphobic. I will refer to trans people to let me know if you are being transphobic. I will ban you if you make an egregiously off colour comment. and I will take pleasure in doing this. Fuck your transphobic bullshit, go somewhere else. Nobody wants you here.
Cis guy here. Based mod.
Thanks for everything you do to keep this community safe. I know it can’t be easy.
idk, I just got to yeet like at least a handful of transphobes into oblivion so… was pretty fun.
It’s important to find work that also nourishes your soul.
Fucking A right. n
You are amazing, brave people and deserve a place in society where you are loved . M
Thank you for not being reddit.
Thank you so much!
👍
Uhhh??? Based???
Lol
God bless it I fucking love lemmy! 😄
What a hero
deleted by creator
Frankly, I don’t care what you think of it. Transphobia is not allowed. This isn’t a democracy. It’s pretty simple: don’t be an asshole.
Every comment removed violates the civility rules of this instance. Which reads thus (emphasis mine):
Do not engage in name calling, ad hominem attacks, or any other uncivil behaviour. Criticize ideas, never people.
IOW: Be transphobic and be prepared for me to iron fist the vagueness of those words. It’s pretty easy not to be an asshole.
“Criticize ideas, never people.” Guess I can’t criticize serial killers- nevermind
Them’s be the rules of this entire instance.
Just to play devils advocate, wouldn’t that mean it’s okay to criticize the idea of transgenderism if you don’t criticize the people who are transgender (although not really sure if that’s even possible)?
Yes. If you could prove transgenderism exists. See because you attach an -ism to it you are (in English) saying “the ideology of transgender individuals” which is “we exist” which is not an ideology. It is a fact. You can disagree with facts all you want but it doesn’t make you smart.or intellectual… it makes you wrong.
Removed by mod
“The idea of being transgender” it’s not an idea anymore than you think about being cisgender. It’s a false dichotomy created by cisgender people who fail to understand the issue or fall victim to the “gay agenda” rhetoric of right wing media.
A better way to phrase it is no trans person thinks of themselves as trans. A trans woman thinks of herself as a woman. A trans man thinks of himself as a man. So there’s no “idea” of “being transgender” unless you’re a cis person who thinks they know what they’re talking about.
It’s like the phrase “differently abled” only able bodied people think like that.
That would be like trying to criticize blackness without criticizing black people, it’s not possible.
That’s the thing about choosing an instance, it’s his house, his rules. At least with Lemmy it’s like you can move out to the next building, Reddit is like living in jail nowhere left to move.
Bruh, just do your job/hobby. Mods acting high and mighty is a big part of what made reddit so toxic.
This is my job: to make perfectly clear what is and isn’t allowed. In no uncertain terms I will make sure this place is as free from transphobia as possible.
The good thing about Lemmy you can move to another instance with free speech.
This is free speech. They get to say what they please. They are not free from the consequences of those words however. I, as a private citizen and not a governmental actor, can censor them.
I disagree, free speech means the right to express any opinions and ideas without censorship or restraint even if you find them offensive.
You said you will remove any comment that is transphobic and ban if “you make an egregiously off colour comment”.
That is not free speech, and it’s ok. Your instance, your rules.
They can say what they want without restraint or restriction. They are not free from the consequences of their words.
They can say what they like. We can ban them if we don’t like it. That’s how free speech works in a consequentialist society (modern Western society is a synthesis of consequentialism and contractualism).
That’s literally not free speech. If I say I like to eat broccoli every day and that people should try it for health reasons and you’re some kind of carnivore mod and it tickles you the wrong way and you block me for it… That’s censorship and the opposite of free speech.
You’re telling me that you control the narrative. Now there’s nuance to censorship for sure, but you’re telling me that if you don’t like what I say I’m out. I have to type within the confines of the bubble of what isn’t too uncomfortable for you.
I say let the downvotes do the talking. If I go on the electric vehicles instance talking about how (non-ironocally) I love to roll coal and how that’s what’s keeping me from trying EVs, I expect to be downvoted into the shadow realm. And that’s ok. What I’m not ok with is a mod assuming that my voice sucks and that I don’t deserve to be heard. Maybe some smart lemmier(?) will point out some doodad that makes a brrr noise and shoots out some harmless mist or something.
You have the right to be an asshole. Mods have the right to ban you for being an asshole.
Making out that they’re nasty for having some standards of behaviour in their area is calling good bad and bad good.
(Censorship is when local or national government put you in prison for protesting or ban your book or ban your ideas. That’s when your free speech rights are being infringed.)
Where and when in the history of ever has there been consequence-free speech? How is this definition at all useful to you? People have always had the ability to define our own social spaces with rules of conduct, why is this any different just because the social space is online?
Censor and banning opinions and ideas you don’t like is anti free speech.
You were allowed to say it. I’m allowed to remove it. Welcome to the world. Don’t like it? Leave.
But also: nobody in the world actually likes the idea of absolutist free speech. The founding fathers certainly didn’t believe in such an idea.
Censorship and restraint from the government. This isn’t that, so the consequences are not covered.
Free speech is about the government not being able to restrict your speech. Guess what? Lemmy isn’t the government.
Lemmy is a protocol so there can be instances with free speech even if you don’t like it.
This makes no sense in reply to my comment. Free speech is about the government, changing Lemmy instances won’t change the fact that Lemmy is not the government. My opinion, views, etc have nothing to do with this. As far as free speech is concerned a community would be free to remove trans positive comments if they so chose.
This happens when transphobes forgets that trans men exists lol.
I’d love to
watchforcefeed them a plate of their, “you will always be a woman” words.They exist? Thought they were a fairytale
I know three.
In fact, come to think of it, I only know two trans women, so I know more trans men than trans women.
Fairy*
I mean… it’s supposed to be a ‘beauty contest’ so why shouldn’t they compete?
Not that I don’t think the entire concept of a competition over beauty is stupid, but they exist, so why not just see who wins?
It’s funny because the original trans sports bans were justified by saying that they would have an unfair advantage. This beauty pageant ban is just transphobes saying that trans women are unfairly attractive lmfao.
These contests are full of ideology, so a trans person has a significant advantage over the others. There aren’t enough heartwarming and sob stories in the world to compensate for that.
On the other hand, I don’t really care if those kind of competitions are unfair. If they help trans people convey a message, that’s probably the best thing that can come out of them.
Ah yes, the competitions currently banning trans women definitely have a positive bias towards them.
Elia Bonci, who also spoke to la Repubblica, said: “I took courage, used my deadname and signed up for Miss Italy because fighting transphobia is intersectional and even though I’m not a trans woman, I’ve decided to fight for their rights.”
much respect to all that followed!
I’m confused. If they are using a dead name how are they not trans?
They are trans men, who the organizers consider women as opposed to the trans women who can’t compete because they consider them men.
I’m gonna need a pen and paper for this one.
I’ll summarize:
-
The contest organizers don’t accept trans women (AKA assigned male at birth, transitioned to female)
-
This means that they are being transphobic, they aren’t treating trans women as women.
-
The person in the article is the opposite, assigned female at birth and transitioned to male. AKA a trans man.
-
This person is considered a woman by the beauty contest despite identifying as male.
-
He entered the beauty contest as a form of protest and to bring attention to the blatant transphobia.
-
So like, according to the organizers, if they were born with a penis, it doesn’t matter if they transitioned, they are considered men.
This trans man (a person born with a vagina who transitioned ) is entering the contest, because if trans women are considered men, trans men are considered women.
So this dude is entering a “female” beauty contest to show how dumb the rules are. He is allowed to do so because said dumb rules make him a woman in the eyes of the organization.
Think the others were missing the point - they are trans men. Their dead name is their dead female name.
The ruling was to prevent trans women from competing, so while they can’t stand for trans women, they’ll stand for all trans.
I think it would have been fair to have a rule saying “no surgical modifications”… because doing things like facelift, nose-job, breast/buttox implants, cheek lifts, wrinkle removal, etc, are obviously unfair advantages (in a beauty contest) for those who have the money pay for it; and having a generic blanket rule like that would have accomplished the same thing they were trying to accomplish without being so blatantly transphobic… so a rule like what they have only proves that they are both despicable AND dumb. The entire notion of beauty pageants is outdated and stupid if you ask me.
Lol, you implement that and basically all beauty pageants stop existing. Which would be a good thing, mind you. But I’ve never met a pageant contestant in my life that isn’t … let’s say … heavily enhanced by medical procedures.
which would be a good thing
Based
I think it would have been fair to have a rule saying “no surgical modifications”…
How are you intending to prove that that? Only the bad surgery makes itself obvious.
Like any kind of contest, finding rules violations is hard and not foolproof. It’s like sports that forbid using steroids - competitors do regularly take those substances while training, then quit taking them for competition and go uncaught. Competitors who are discovered later to have been violating rules are stripped of titles.
That said, I don’t think it’s a very controversial concept that a beauty pageant shouldn’t be a contest about who could afford the best surgeons. Well - as I said earlier I think beauty pageants are absurd to begin with, but if they have to exist I don’t think it should be a contest between surgeons.
Though I would watch one that was a contest between surgeons. I imagine it’d start pretty tame, but the first time a girl with cat ears wins, were only like 5 years from the really crazy shit
This would be hilarious if it happened.
On the one hand, that might work. On the other hand, who gives a fuck about the rules in a contest with arbitrary standards?
I’d be more interested in protesting the fact that it’s now legal to grope women in Italy.
The landmark decision involved a school janitor who jammed his hand into a 17 year old girl’s panties.
Pick the hill you want to die on.
Both. I choose both.
I’m sure they care about both of those things.
It seems like a particularly neanderthal legal development.
Yes, it is.
“Why do this one good thing when you should be doing another good thing instead?”
For context, Miss Italia is no longer broadcasted on important tv channels and almost no one watches or care about who wins now. Years ago (10?) it was a big thing and winners would make commercials and do movies/series and be remembered for life. But it’s too an old school concept now
Anyway, I love this turn of events
Source: Italian
I’m glad to hear Italy is moving past its Berlusconi era.
Does this mean we won’t be able to see it live? Or at all?
I just googled it, apparently it might come back to the first national tv channel for 2023, we’ll see, anyway it was streamed on the official website before that and for the last 4 years
Will they have the power to reject candidates? Maybe I’m naive to think they’ll have the trans men compete too but I wanna see how it’ll play out.
I think they totally can reject who they want… usually competitors are the winners of local beauty contest, so there’s a lot of ways to be excluded before even reaching the last decision stage. But not sure, I never really cared for it
Aw… I see. Thanks for the answers, I appreciate it.
Of course 🙌
YES. This is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying!!! Like honestly, as a cis woman from Italy I’m so embarrassed by this nonsense. Like, cutting trans women out of the competition at this moment just means people are recognizing that trans women are “unfairly” more good looking than cis women. Which, personally, is true in my case but you don’t see me bitching about it. Fuck yeah trans dudes, trans chicks and non-binary buddies.
Wait what? I get why someone would forbid trans women from participating in female sports events, but why TF can’t they go to beauty contests?
Because excluding trans women from sports was never actually about fairness. It’s about normalizing excluding trans people from aspects of public life.
It’s wrong to ban trans women from women’s sports, because trans women are women.
But they have the muscles of a male and usually beat all women-since-birth in competitions.
Yeah, Ik I’m gonna get downvoted to oblivion and I’m gonna get called TERF but that’s the reason it’s controversial in the first place
Given a long enough time on the right hormones, and most (not all) of that advantage disappears. “While absolute lean mass remains higher in trans women, relative percentage lean mass and fat mass (and muscle strength corrected for lean mass), hemoglobin, and VO2 peak corrected for weight was no different to cisgender women. After 2 years of GAHT, no advantage was observed for physical performance measured by running time or in trans women. By 4 years, there was no advantage in sit-ups. While push-up performance declined in trans women, a statistical advantage remained relative to cisgender women.”
There’s also a large band of ability within people. Michael Phelps has a genetic advantage, but his accomplishments are still celebrated.
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439?login=false
It’s rare that I see someone type a comment that mentions everything I want to say. You rock!
Here is my question though, and if you have any info I’d love to see it. Do performance enhancing drugs interact in men and women the same way? I ask since not all enhancing drugs are banned.
If yes, how do these interact with tans people? Would a trans woman be able to get more positive effects from the drugs?
What’s your idea of what a trans woman’s body looks like, exactly? Like, do you think a trans woman is just “a man in a dress”? Because that’s just straight up inaccurate in every way. HRT changes trans people’s bodies and how those bodies work. That’s why we say “trans women are women and trans men are men”. Like, would you think making someone with the body of Buck Angel compete in women’s competitions would be fair? Google Buck Angel, look at him and then come back at me.
Hormones are not going to reshape someone’s body structure
Except they do. Literally look at any picture of a trans woman before and after transitioning. Their bodies literally change in every sense.
“Oh their fat is accumulated in other places”
I’m talking about internal stuff
I’m trans and I actually agree with you. I don’t know the solution to make things fair, but I wouldn’t want to use a strong biological advantage over someone else.
I see it like if I’d been born with some identifiable and categorised physical advantage then I shouldn’t be competing against people without that advantage.
It’s debatable how big the difference is, however, and whether it’s a gap easily closed or not. My thoughts are that there could be an open category where anyone could compete on the understanding that there may be severe biological differences. There’s no easy solution :(
Edit: thinking about it, sporting competitions are more sex-catagorised than gender-categorised. I don’t think someone identifying as female with no physical/medical alterations from a biological male form should compete with biological females and I don’t think that should be controversial since the gender isn’t what people care about there. It’s the physical characteristics. In some sports that might provide an advantage, in some a disadvantage, but I do this it’s important to discuss! At that point, however, you’d be better ignoring gender and sex entirely and only categorising sports like ‘feather weight’ or ‘strong muscular development’ or something
Just make it body mass based
I think this is where it makes sense to go. Like wrestling, right? Just make every sport competition divided on gender if it’s that important, and then divided on the basis of body mass. Although frankly I think that would make every sport ten times more boring than it needs to be. Like smaller athletes usually need to figure out a way to still compete, and that’s where part of the fun is, both in competing and watching. If an athlete feels disadvantaged, they’re just lazy and not training well or enough.
Then again, I do think sports should be less owned by massive corporations and media companies, and move more to their dimension of play, admiration for each other and self-improvement. Not saying sports shouldn’t be jobs and not have money go in and out, but they should center that dimension a lot less.
I mean… some cis women are born thicker and taller than others which might be an advantage over other women, biologically. Yet, nobody disqualifies those women from competing. It just means everyone else has to be twice as competitive and work around their physical limits. Sports are largely about overcoming one’s performance limits. Like, a shorter basketball player can still play basketball and be really good at it, it’s all about how they train, what they focus on and how they play. And it’s about how good they are at dealing with the space around them and controlling their body. This was always the case, always in the history of sports. Being a stronger athlete was never a problem before, and now suddenly it is? It doesn’t make any sense, and it’s just an excuse for bad athletes who don’t wanna git gud to demand special treatment. I’m speaking as a cis woman who’s bigger than most other women around me. Not my fault that I can accidentally throw other chicks to the bleachers without even being aware of them, and I’m still a woman no matter how other people see me. So yeah, this whole discourse affects me too, because trans people being targeted also targets any person who was born intersex or just different.
Ok, hold on, why would you forbid trans women from competing? Because of “unfair advantages”? First off, trans women who completed their transition don’t have a male body. They have a female body. And some athletes are naturally better at some sports than others. Like, shorter basketball players are naturally disadvantaged at basket, which is why they need to train twice as hard as taller players or switch to another sport. Also, every whiny white woman complaining about trans women doing better than them always forgets to mention the athletes winning are still the cis ones, which destroys the idea that trans women have an advantage.
The point never held up either in sports nor anywhere else. And it was never about sports anyway.
Bone and muscle structure won’t change because of transition
You’d be surprised.
From experience, female clothes aren’t proportioned to fit trans women as well as cis women. While in your other comment you make a good point about some cis women also being outside the ‘conventional’ physical expectations for women in western society, that doesn’t also mean that trans people don’t face the same issues. We talk about these problems from a trans perspective because trans people are often targeted with legislation and rules from people who don’t understand, and are blocked from being treated as their preferred gender. A bulky cis woman might share physical characteristics with a trans woman, but their existence is also significantly less opposed.
Edit: to my first point there are a number of biological size/proportion differences between cis men and cis women that can be seen here: https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/sites/ehs.oregonstate.edu/files/pdf/ergo/ergonomicsanddesignreferenceguidewhitepaper.pdf
Oh yeah, for sure, I’m not saying gnc cis woman face the same amount of oppression as trans women. What I’m saying is, by shoving people into very restrictive, hyper-specific boxes, we end up excluding people who by definition shouldn’t be excluded. Like the cis athlete who was excluded from competing because she naturally produces more testosterone than the others. While being cis, again. Or like, all the cis gnc women who get attacked or murdered because transphobes think they’re trans when they’re not.
My point is, women aren’t all the same. Also, women who are naturally prone to packing muscles can and sometimes do go toe to toe with men in terms of height and strength. But they’re still cis women, and should compete as cis women.
But all of this is pointless anyway: this is a BEAUTY contest, and excluding trans women in this historical period is basically like saying trans women have “unfair advantages in the field of beauty” which I mean, could be, but it’s very much a self-report. There’s also the objection that “trans women do surgeries to look the way they look” which yeah, true, but cis women who participate in Miss Italia also very much do get surgery to look the way they look. Matter of fact, there have been multiple scandals about Miss Italy winners having gone through plastic surgery to win. So I mean, everything goes.
This is deliciously rich. They really painted themselves into a corner with that one!
I hope he wins. That’d be really funny.
Imagine a buff, bearded person that identifies as male wins in a contest that measures female beauty
Clever way of protesting it.
Wait, they have to tell the organizers such sensible details?
Are they required to be virgins too?
You’re thinking of Miss Vatican.
deleted by creator
But why would they make such a distinction? If it’s a contest for women, all women should be allowed to compete. What does it matter if they are trans or cis?
In this case it’s ok (IMO), trans or not, they should be able to participate. But a hill I’m willing to die on is that when it comes to sports, only trans women who got blockers before puberty should be able to participate.
This argument keeps coming up and yet there has yet to be a single trans woman athlete who significantly out competes the completion. It’s always pointing to someone who like trains every day of their life and gets 7th place or some shit. Once it was even like 1000th place in a race (which have no genuine competition after, like, 10th place)
Not to mention we’re deep down the path of banning blockers in most places, and even if they remain legal in specific left leaning pockets, that just creates a group of people who lucked into not being banned from sports.
