At what point is this child abuse? Trans kids.

[o_O.Q]

Hiku said:

o_O.Q said:

"And I told you that pointing at two different phrases, ignoring their meaning or context"

if i ignored their meaning or context how did you come to clarify what you said multiple times?

obviously you made the clarifications in response to arguments i made about your posts

I made the clarification because you inexplicably interpreted it as "has nothing to do with their identity" when I said no such thing.

I should not have had to explain that.

o_O.Q said:
if i make two phrases like "john went south for the winter" and then i said "john did not go south for the winter" are you really trying to argue that people would reasonably expect that the contradiction here has to be spelled out?

That's an inaccurate analogy.
I used different terms for the sentences in question. "Is not the same as", "some people are asexual" and "is not a factor".

But that wasn't even what you were caught up on, as you pointed out the 'irony' in my sentence well before I had even used the term "factor".
In fact, before I had even said "I did not say it has nothing to do with."

Just because I clarified that in my original post "I did not say it "has nothing to do with it"", that does not mean that I claimed the opposite.
It simply means I did not say what you claim I said.

The whole "nothing to do with their identity" was your idea. I simply said that this did not come from my mouth.

All I said at that point was that Sexuality is not the same as identity, and then gave asexual people as an example.

What was ironic about the comment?

To refresh your memory, this was our entire exchange on the subject, before you claimed it was ironic:

Me: "Identity is not the same as sexuality. Some people are asexual for example."
You: "do those people identify as asexual?"
Me: "They don't have to. But asexual people exist."
You:"my point is that you are identifying them as asexual then claiming that their sexuality has nothing to do with their identity... doesn't that strike you as ironic?"

The bolded part is the false claim you made.
Which leads me to this:

o_O.Q said:

"At no point did I say 'has nothing to do with their identity'. That's something you made up."

"And in the case of some asexual people, sexuality is not a factor."

are you kidding me? can you logically explain how its not essentially the same thing?

Yes, and in more than one way. One I already described above.
Saying that I never claimed "it has nothing to do with" does not mean I claim the opposite, nor that I took a stance on it one way or the other.

The reason I felt the need to clarify this to you, aside from the fact that I did not say it, is because there you are dealing in absolute terms.
Something I was careful to avoid at that point, which is why I said "Not the same as". So you replying with "has nothing to do with" was in stark contrast to how I worded my sentence. I had to make that clear.

Secondly, when I later (after you already pointed out some irony I've yet to see explained) used the term "is not a factor" I was also trying to avoid "has nothing to do with their identity".
Partially because some asexual people do have a sexual drive, but also because even for the ones who don't, it can be quite debatable to claim that it's absence has nothing to do with their identity, as I have a personal friend who struggles a lot with existential issues, partially because of the absence of his sexuality. So I would say it does affect his view on his own identity.

The reason I brought up asexual people is because their sexuality and its effect on their identity can vary more than between 'normal people'.

o_O.Q said:

"Part of the reason why we have moderators is because we expect that people won't always discuss things reasonably and maturely. And they don't."

i worded that badly this was my intent

So you're saying that because moderators exist, you don't expect anyone to react badly to something that may otherwise provoke a negative response?
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say.

o_O.Q said:

"If you want numbers for your mod history, you can check them yourself under My Profile. Should say something like Moderation History in the top right corner."

according to my moderation history i've been banned 10 times

3 times for sig length

1 time for thread derailment

5 times for flaming

1 time for trolling

i have been on this site now for over eight years... do you really think its fair to characterise someone with an average of 1 ban for trolling every eight years as a bad user?

why didn't you post my history to begin with so we could have an actual discussion based on facts and figures? if i wanted to now i could even go and plot a graph or something

I did not post the specific details because it's our policy to try to keep those in PM, or in the moderator topic.

I'll just reiterate two things.
Like I said before, bans are not the only relevant moderations we look at. Warnings are as well. Bans generally come as a result of multiple warnings. So they're not inherently different in nature. You can be warned over something more severe than what you end up being banned for.

Secondly, when I go through someone's mod notes, and there is a scroll bar even though I'm viewing it in full page mode, that's usually not a good indication for me personally. Of course, things like being warned for sig length I consider fairly irrelevant to cases where there may be trolling, flaming, etc.

o_O.Q said:

oh sorry that's true here are some more

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9000918

"You claim that these parents are pushing their children, however in both examples you provided, it appears that the children are the ones who are being allowed to lead and express their own identities in the way they see fit."

on the one hand sundin is advocating for men to be allowed to change their identity to women if they want to, but sundin in the past has advocated for feminists issues... both values obviously conflict since feminism is largely predicated on a delineation between men and women do you agree?

He's saying that the child in question was always female. Or always considered themselves female, once they figured things out. Not that they were a man, and then changed to a woman.

I guess I'll touch on what I meant by "how what that poster said is not the same thing you described" now, since you gave me examples that predate your comment.

What Sundin is saying here is what he perceives to already be true. Not a "difference that he is fighting to reduce."
He thinks that this is how it is. That some women are born in male bodies, and vice versa.

However, I can understand why you might phrase it that way, so on the idea that you were trying to flamebait a particular large group with your comment, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and conclude that that was not your intention.

But let me also explain why your comment may be perceived that way by others.

When you say "fighting to reduce differences", people are going to think about actual differences between men and women that people are fighting to reduce.
One very common thing that may come to mind when reading your comment is something like the difference in average wages between men and women, within the same line of work. And people are fighting to reduce those differences. Literally.

So you could easily be reported by someone for trying to instigate unnecessary arguments with a group of people.

So when you call people out like that in the future, try to be mindful of the words you chose. And if you are referring to someone specific, it's good if you can cite them. Especially if you have a history of stirring the pot when it comes to a group of people.

"The reason I felt the need to clarify this to you, aside from the fact that I did not say it, is because there you are dealing in absolute terms."

to say something is not a factor for something is an absolute statement but i was wrong to not specify that you were not referring to all asexual people

"Partially because some asexual people do have a sexual drive"

this doesn't make any sense to me, asexuality is literally defined as the absense of sex drive wouldn't that simply be a case of low libido?

"So you're saying that because moderators exist, you don't expect anyone to react badly to something that may otherwise provoke a negative response?
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say."

possibly because you're trying to read ill intent in my posts that has never existed

to correct my mistake earlier my point was that we have moderators on forums to ensure that people behave despite hoping that people will behave themselves without intervention from moderators

"He's saying that the child in question was always female. Or always considered themselves female, once they figured things out."

fair enough and how would feminists be able to distinguish as a result who is a woman and who is a man if we simply determine this based on what they claim to be? i'm saying its contradictory because feminist rhetoric in other contexts seeks to paint men and women as being radically different from each other such as the idea of sexualisation, rape culture, violence etc etc etc

"What Sundin is saying here is what he perceives to already be true. Not a "difference that he is fighting to reduce.""

in this context i'm saying there is a fight to reduce differences because the notion is essentially that the only thing that determines who is man and who is woman is the declaration of the individual person, which obviously is throwing away a lot of the other factors that have been used to distinguish between the two

'He thinks that this is how it is. That some women are born in male bodies, and vice versa."

fair enough, am i not allowed to think that this is nonsense and disagree with him?

how does this work mechanically btw? is the claim being made that these people have a soul or a spirit that is gendered?

"So you could easily be reported by someone for trying to instigate unnecessary arguments with a group of people."

even if i can validate my argument and demonstrate what i'm referring to?