A conservative forum is a forum run by conservatives for conservatives and limits itself to conservative positions

Says who?! It can mean whatever you define it to mean. You’re just making stuff up, you’re no authority.

It’s a general purpose discussion forum that can touch on topics like conservativism, socialism or biking.

This is not the way you presented feddit.uk before. You seemed to be explicitly excluding conservativism.

I’m not going to list all the things this place is not as that’s an infinity long list.

Of course but I would point out that social conservativism is the dominant political philosophy in the UK so it would be odd and in fact misleading not to be up front about excluding conservativism in an instance that advertises itself as a general UK instance. Hence my concern.

Polite bigotry is still bigotry, do you think we should allow race realists if they mind their Ps and Qs correctly?

Most definitely. How else could such views be shown up for what they are using sound reason and subtle but devastating wit, as is the British way? (As opposed to sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and shouting “LA LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU UR DUMB I’MA BAN U”.)

even tolerant Britain doesn’t let them inject these believes wherever, social spaces like pubs and community events still limit what can take place in them.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with this but I would note that with one exception, all the racist people I’ve had the misfortune of encountering have been in pubs. And moreover, I wouldn’t want to spend time in any pub where any kinds of ‘certain’ discussions were outright prohibited.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jssqYTMf9E

I don’t see why we should be more accepting of transphobia

Debating isn’t the same thing as accepting.

The only things these guidelines ask you to do is not promote fear or hatred of trans people and that you aren’t allowed to say that a trans person’s gender identity is less valid than a cis person’s.

It seems you’ve changed your tune:

1. In response to the question “The instance is never an appropriate context and any such discussion whatsoever is prohibited?”: “Yes, …”

2. “It’s about protecting a vulnerable minority. … I don’t want this place to be a contributor to these statistics and I’m going to prioritise the safety of our trans users over some notion of neutrality.”

And also, to be clear:

3. In response to the question “if someone created a linguistic philosophy community on feddit.uk and in that community members held a discussion on ‘a trans person’s “I’m a man” as less than a cis person’s “I’m a man”’, is that prohibited or not?” which is about discussion of whether a trans person’s “I’m a man” is less than a cis person’s “I’m a man” and doesn’t necessarily imply saying anything one way or the other: “no [yes] as that’s pretty clearly …”

I wonder what reasonable ‘philosophical discussion’ this excludes

There’s plenty. Wouldn’t it be great if we created a place where such wonderings could be explored honestly without concern over being banned? What a pity that instead there’s a place of dullness, with rules motivated by fear.

This not being a conservative forum isn’t the same as conservatives not being welcome, I believe we even have some around.

This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whatever it is that feddit.uk is not, please state that up front in the “Who are we?” section. If feddit.uk is not a conservative forum, please state “feddit.uk is not a conservative forum” in the “Who are we?” section. That would at least give people more clarity on what feddit.uk is, who is here and what they can expect when they post from here.

This is getting very tiresome for what is a very little ask

By the same token, clarifying what feddit.uk is and is not in the “Who are we?” section seems to me like a very little ask.

don’t be transphobic. This has been a rule on the site literally from inception.

But the new “guidelines” and more importantly the statements from an admin (yourself) in comments under this post about what feddit.uk is not, are all new. As far as I know, philisophical discussion of trans issues had never been prohibited before.

My understanding of feddit.uk until this post was that it would reflect general wider social mores of British society: tolerance, even of those who have what we feel to be reprehensible views, up to the point where it’s clear a person is uncivil or unreasonable. Now my understanding of feddit.uk is different: there are some areas of discussion which are not tolerated under any circumstances, regardless civility or reasonableness. There is now an ideological component, not to the makeup of the user population (which has always been obvious), but to the governance of the instance which is a whole different kettle of fish and very new. Now, feddit.uk has an official ideological position: not a conservative forum, social discussion, no philosophical debate about trans issues, etc.

This is pretty categorically not a conservative forum

This comment along with others like

This is a social discussion forum not a linguist philosophy one

and

That wouldn’t really change the fact this is a place for discussion of things with other people.

make it clear that feddit.uk has an agenda: it’s for lefty social discussion.

Adding @[email protected] @[email protected]

Can I suggest making that agenda clear in the “Who are we?” section of feddit.uk 's front page so that people are aware of what they’re signing up for and that this isn’t just a general UK instance? In particular, it seems egregious to me that there is no mention of the fact that conservatives aren’t welcome.

Christ I just saw that you’re OP. I’m confused; why did you use the word “enshittification” if you didn’t know what it meant?

LOL

it arguably comes under the umbrella or enshitification

How so?

“first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification

That’s not enshitification?

I think I see what you’ve been trying to communicate now.

as I said – they are saying one thing and doing another.

Well the problem is you didn’t say that. You seemed to assume that readers would understand what you meant without actually saying it:

my main point - that the EHRC is purposely pushing anti-trans advice to government bodies and dubiously using the SC’s verdict as vindication to do so, despite the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything.

Notice that this sentence does not mention anybody “saying one thing and doing another”. The critical part is that with “the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything” you’re presumably referring to what the commissioner said in the article and what you wrote at the start of your first comment but you never made that link explicit.

My assertion that your repetition of what the commissioner said undermined your main point was based on my understanding of what you had written, not on what you had meant but never made explicit.

I know what she said

I’m confused then. Why did you state, at the start of a load of criticism, exactly what the woman in the article stated, without mentioning the fact that you were repeating what she was saying? What was the purpose of putting that at the start of your criticism?

Will the government spend money wisely on this project or syphon off millions to corrupt contractors?

I’m confused. Isn’t syphoning off money the whole purpose of a government? Why would they spend money wisely?

I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point

I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)

I know it wasn’t the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance

I’m glad to hear that.

And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people

I’m curious about this, could you possibly provide a source?

The supreme court were very clear that their ruling was not a reduction in trans rights, but a clarification of existing legislation.

That’s exactly what the woman is saying. Did you read the article before commenting?

It’s pretty clear that the EHRC is purposely misrepresenting the SC’s conclusion

This was not the EHCR, this was the EHCR commissioner talking in a personal capacity.

nonpeople

O_o

Here is a quote from the top post in that community today:

That’s not the kind of discussion I was referring to although there are indeed a lot of angry detransitioners there. I meant more serious discussion like the following. And it’s worth bearing in mind that /r/detrans only allows participation by people who either are currently trans or who were trans and have detransitioned:

It’s crazy how much of trans culture is “letting the intrusive thoughts win”. There’s this whole mindset of “you are your urges and if you don’t act on them you’re denying your true self, which will have dire consequences”.

Sentiments I’ve seen expressed in online trans spaces include:

• “Cis” people don’t question their gender. If you ever question your gender you are not “cis”.
• If you are not “cis” you need to do some kind of transition otherwise your life is a lie and you will be miserable forever and probably commit suicide.
• Your endogenous sex hormones are poisoning/ruining your body and you need to start HRT ASAP to prevent further damage.
• You need to start transitioning ASAP, every moment you spend not having started transition is wasted and a lie. If you wait too long it will be too late, you will never be able to live as your true self, and you will be miserable forever and probably commit suicide.
• Any mental health issues/life problems you’re experiencing were actually gender dysphoria all along.
• If you search the memories of your past, you’ll find evidence that you were always meant to transition.
• If you’re unsure about your “gender identity” you should try transition anyway so you can be sure. Try out names, pronouns and outfits. Try HRT.
• If you are dysphoric and HRT lessens it, transition was the right choice. If HRT makes your dysphoria worse, or you start experiencing dysphoria on HRT when you didn’t before, this also means that transition was the right choice, because HRT helped you to stop repressing your feelings.
• If you are questioning your gender but have neutral/positive feelings about some sexed part of your body, you are in denial. Once you fully accept your identity you’ll realise that you hate that body part too and were repressing your true feelings.
• If you want to transition, you should. If you don’t want to transition or are worried/scared that you’ll have to transition, this also means that you should, because you’re repressing/in denial.
• Any doubts you have about transition are denial and internalised transphobia.

These people are straight up encouraging obsession and paranoia. Once you’re introduced to the culture and start “questioning” (and all kinds of things count as “questioning”), every path you’re presented with ends with “you need to transition ASAP otherwise things will get massively worse and it might kill you”. The brainrot is difficult to eradicate, and potentially life-ruining for anyone with OCD, intrusive thoughts, hyperfixations, or similar issues.

Anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with the state of the community gets chastised and/or kicked out. This happened to me once. A few years ago I was in a Discord with some friends, many of whom started identifying as trans/non-binary. One day I said something they interpreted as “transphobic” and was promptly dogpiled and banned from the server (one person sent me a high and mighty message about how I should “rescind my statement” if I wanted to be unbanned). People from the server contacted my best friend and urged him to stop associating with me (he was a reasonable guy so he didn’t).

– https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/comments/1kdqur4/trans_culture_cognitohazards/

Is this kind of discussion prohibited?

I don’t even know what ‘detrans discussions’ means

I mean discussions similar to those in Reddit’s /r/detrans, /r/actual_detrans, /r/ask_detransition, etc. or in fact any discussions around detransitioning. In my experience, such communities and discussions very much do not toe the trans party line.

Are detrans discussions prohibited?

I asked before but didn’t get a response.

Are detrans discussions prohibited?

If you want to have these discussions, then you need to do it in an appropriate context. The comment section under a trans article isn’t really the best place as this comes across as trollish and like you’re trying to sneak in transphobia under the guise of philosophy.

And so following from your other comments, the appropriate contexts you’re referring to are outside of the feddit.uk instance entirely? The instance is never an appropriate context and any such discussion whatsoever is prohibited?

Instance-level rules and guidelines are going to be general purpose.

So if someone created a linguistic philosophy community on feddit.uk and in that community members held a discussion on ‘a trans person’s “I’m a man” as less than a cis person’s “I’m a man”’, is that prohibited or not?