8 ms·
TikTok Explicitly Bans Misgendering, Deadnaming, Promotion of Conversion Therapy
- iqanq 5y ago
- fxleach 5y agoYou seem to be confusing sex and gender. There's a difference. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html
- tiahura 5y ago
- fxleach 5y agoI suggest you re-read the list of definitions at the link you posted. You might learn something invaluable.
- staticman2 5y agoOED doesn't suggest they are the same. You know words have more than one definition depending on context right?
- sudosysgen 5y agoNo matter which words you use to describe it, there is inarguably a social role that is bimodally distributed and imperfectly correlated with sex that determines which pronouns we use for people, amongst other things. Even if you don't want to call that gender for some odd reason, that doesn't change the fact that this social construct is separate from sex.
- tiahura 5y ago
- sudosysgen 5y agoI don't think people are making mistakes. It's a social construct. If I want to consider these people women, there is nothing stopping me, and I don't need to care about people's chromosomes.
- Auracle 5y agoIt’s weird to me that when I was growing up the push was that gender roles were social constructs and should be torn down/ignored. Now it’s “if you’re a girl and you like to play video games, maybe you were just born in the wrong body.” Gender can’t be just a social construct and also a reason to transition, at least in my mind.
- staticman2 5y agoI don't think anyone is actually saying "If you’re a girl and you like to play video games, maybe you were just born in the wrong body.” Like, i saw a meme on reddit with a person saying "People keep telling me to just be a butch lesbian instead of transitioning to a man :(" Presumably a butch lesbian can do anything a man can do except walking around without a shirt, so I don't think that's the issue.
- sudosysgen 5y agoNo one is telling people to transition because they're trans. There is some tension between the two positions, but they are reconciliable. As far as we have gender as a social construct, and we will for the foreseeable future, gender identity is inevitable.
- anaisbetts 5y ago
- iqanq 5y ago
- sudosysgen 5y agoYou're describing sex, not gender, if you want to go back to basic science. All throughout history many people fulfilled the social role associated with the opposite sex despite having different chromosomes from the norm.
- tiahura 5y ago
- dragonwriter 5y agoSex is a cluster of traits with multidimensional variation and bimodal clustering distribution. Gender identity is, arguably, one of many sex traits, or a product of the interaction of such a trait with the social milieu. Ascribed gender is a social trait whose relation to sex traits, including gender identity, varies by time, place, and social context (though in the West, it is converging toward being aligned with gender identity where the latter is known.)
- dTal 5y agoUp front - I don't think that the concept of "gender identity" is required in order to have basic courtesy and respect toward people, which is what this discussion about TikTok is about. However, I'm not at all convinced by the concept of "gender identity" and I think it warrants open debate. Unfortunately, voicing such an opinion is liable to get one lumped in with the more loudmouth transphobic crowd, and so it makes such discussion very difficult. I know from private conversations that many people you would not expect have their doubts as well, but they keep it to themselves. I think it's therefore all the more important for people who aren't loudmouth transphobes to weigh in on it. My issue with it is this: is the concept of "gender identity" separable from gender stereotypes? What does it mean to "identify" with this or that? If men and women are both permitted to wear whatever they like, date whoever they like, arrange flowers or race dirtbikes as they see fit - then what does "identity" capture? Doesn't it privilege some kind of essentialist view - that there is some fundamental, immutable characteristic that is not captured by personality or preference, that girls are girls and boys are boys regardless of how tomboyish or flamboyant they are? Isn't this basically self-contradictory, or at the very least regressive? This isn't neccesarily to say that "gender identity", as a preference, isn't real in some sense - we should always be careful to distinguish the inconvenient from the untrue, and some people (certainly not everyone) feels a powerful sense of "gender identity". But it may simply describe a strong preference for how society views you, given the stereotypes that society has, rather than any kind of essential characteristic. And perhaps - just perhaps - we shouldn't be regarding it as a reflection of a healthy and accepting society, but as a hint that society still discriminates heavily on the basis of sex.
- baggy_trough 5y ago
- foxyv 5y agoAs much as I want to insult, cajole, harass, and harp on you about this comment, I cannot because this is a moderated forum. Sounds like TikTok is doing something similar. Is that going too far?
- DeaconWilliams 5y ago
- dragonwriter 5y ago> The new “right-think” on gender and sex seems to directly contradict basic common sense. You’re born with a set of parts and chopping them off doesn’t change who you are. But no one thinks chopping of parts changes who you are. The reactionary view on gender thinks the parts determine who you are and continue to do so after you chop them off, while the nonreactionary view is that the parts don't determine who you so chopping them off doesn't change that.
- fxleach 5y ago"Gender" is just a word. Words have meanings, and meanings can change over time. As with gender and sex, you seem to be confusing your stubbornness with common sense.
- anaisbetts 5y ago
- selfhoster11 5y agoWhile I think that everybody should be treated with respect, policing this via censorship is dangerous. You can't legislate away hate, as I found out when I realised that the USA is still a racist in many, many places even though the Civil Rights Act was passed over 50 years ago.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThis isn't legislation, though. It's a private company deciding they don't want to facilitate some speech. Now I agree that there should be some level of compelled speech from private platforms, but I don't think we need to force them to amplify such things.
- selfhoster11 5y agoI'm personally of the opinion that if a private social platform bills itself as a digital town square and has ambitions of becoming a monopoly (or a part of an oligopoly), then it should be treated exactly as if it was state-owned. If 20% of your potential audience can be taken away by the flip of a switch (or worse, an automated algorithm with no real oversight), then it really doesn't matter who's doing the taking away. The harm is the same.
- sudosysgen 5y agoDoes tiktok even bill itself as a digital town square? Also, if you've ever had the misfortune of helping run a forum, you would know that this isn't really workable. Without proactive moderation that goes above and beyond the bare legal minimum, a tiny minority of individuals will just take over the space and completely ruin it for everyone. There has to be some moderation beyond that the government does to public spaces. At the same time, I don't want people to be functionally excluded from society purely for their political opinions not least of which because I believe people can change. There has to be an equilibrium, and I think that purposefully harassing minorities should be outside of that equilibrium.
- 5y ago
- pwdisswordfish9 5y agoRemember, no referring to Meta Inc. as "Facebook"!
- joemazerino 5y agoConsidering TikTok is owned by a Chinese company and China has it's own version of TikTok, are these new updated rules reflect in the Chinese TikTok?
- naasking 5y agoHow to avoid deadnaming in some contexts isn't really clear. How do you talk about historical events where a trans person's original name was recorded? For instance, nobody is retroactively editing a movie's credits to use their new name. Nobody is re-engraving trophies that had their original name engraved. The policy seems to universally be "you're evil if you deadname in any context, period", which seems logically impossible to satisfy in some contexts.
- anaisbetts 5y agoAlways use their new name. Consider if you were talking about someone who recently got married - would you refer to them as "Miss XYZ" when talking about a month ago but when talking in the present use their current name "Mrs. ABC"? Same thing.
- yucky 5y ago
- effingwewt 5y agoWell done. People insisting on black and white w/o nuance never seem to think things through too far. It reminds me of a few years ago when some would cry to be the first to scream they dont see color.
- carapace 5y ago> Did Bruce Jenner win gold medals, or did Caitlyn Jenner win them? Same person, different name, mu. The menu is not the meal, the map is not the territory, the name is not the person. > are we deadnaming when referring to actual events that took place while Bruce Jenner was competing in the Olympics? You just deadnamed Caitlyn Jenner in that question. Compare with "are we deadnaming when referring to actual events that took place while Caitlyn Jenner was competing in the Olympics under the name Bruce?" In any event the answer is yes, if you're calling Caitlyn Bruce, but no if you're describing events that happened in the past. I.e. Elliot Page will be starring in the upcoming season three of Umbrella Academy, I'm eager to see how the show will handle his character now that he's no longer Ellen Page.
- rkk3 5y agoI wonder if China's FP plays into it at all. In the same way that Russia has tried to foment cultural unrest in the United states by promoting far left & far right groups.