LGBT
Related: About this forumJust a FYI for LGBT members.
MIR Team (EarlG) banned Syrinx
Reason:
Syrinx used a bigoted term to refer to transgender people (\"tranny\". He was informed that the term was offensive by numerous members but rather than retracting or editing his comments, he doubled down on them. He first referred to the people who alerted on his post as \"maggots that need to be squashed.\" He then referred to a member who was trying to educate him about the word \"tranny\" as \"either an ACT-UP extremist idiot, or a conservative disruptor.\" Syrinx was given ample time (24+ hours) to retract or edit his comments, but chose not to. This was not the first time he had posted something insensitive to LGBT people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com?com=profile&uid=118183&sub=trans
Real name:
DU Member for: 9 years, 3 months, 21 days
Posts: 14,804
Recommendations: 11
Star member: Yes
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)No "Gay rights", only human rights. Just "marriage" without any modifiers.
pinto
(106,886 posts)And I know they gave him due consideration. Enough was enough.
Call Me Wesley
(38,187 posts)I'm sure this wouldn't have happened this (now - since it obviously wasn't his first time) easily without your recent effort, Bill, and The Philosopher's provided links. Glad to have you on the MIRT. Thank you!
William769
(59,147 posts)in the MIR Forum. As a matter of fact all MIR members handled this one in the best way possible.
But I know you don't have access to that Forum, so all is still good.
Call Me Wesley
(38,187 posts)I didn't even know DURHAM D was on MIRT. Kudos and thanks to her as well, of course. Great job!
William769
(59,147 posts)DURHAM D
(33,054 posts)it takes all of us, each addressing the matter in our own way.
Your constant vigilance has set a very high standard, not just for your fellow LGBT MIR members, but for all of the team members. When I check-in to DU I notice that you have been on top of everything in MIR, H & M, GD and LGBT. I honestly don't know how you do it and I am worried that you are not getting enough sleep.
Maybe tonight you will rest well.
Thanks again for all that you do.
HillWilliam
(3,310 posts)when that line would finally be crossed.
Thanks MIRT!
WillParkinson
(16,879 posts)This is the post in question, I believe: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=568947
This is the results of the jury:
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Apr 16, 2012, 04:42 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: That was not my understanding. Is transsexual a banned term? The shortening of it shouldn't be.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
William769
(59,147 posts)But it does help with the final outcome, and the final outcome here was indeed good.
That post you cited, did not go unnoticed.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)I didn't particularly like that poster calling the LGBT community of DU "maggots" either. The poster might as well have been calling us all that disgusting name, with their attitude.
Good word, MIRT.
qb
(5,924 posts)as it is everywhere else. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of BS.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)rectify wayward behavior here. I don't think Earl had any other choices.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)I couldn't believe that post of his regarding the transgender wedding where he wrote "that's so wrong"..... I had never seen it until today. Wow.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
NICO9000
(970 posts)A few weeks ago, I had a post removed for the first time for insinuating that Ann Coulter may or may not be a transsexual. I wrote it in jest and in no way do I think she's anything but a female - a really horrible one, but a woman nonetheless. I am not a PC person at all when it comes to most humour and was raised on '70s National Lampoon mags, so I'm the first to admit that some of my jokes may be offensive to some.
Having the post removed was fair enough. It was a 4-2 split against me and I have no problem with that. The fact that it was deemed "hate speech" did bug me a little and I found it a bit funny as I have a gay sister who luckily enough got married before Prop H8 here in CA, but obviously, nobody here could have had any knowledge of that. In fact, she and her wife adopted an infant back in September 2010 and just last Saturday finally had the baby baptized, having gone through 17 Catholic churches who refused to do it because of their prejudice.
I've known many gay and lesbian people for decades and one thing I've noticed is that most of them have been fairly easy to identify as gay or lesbian by either voice, dress, or (don't kill me here) haircut. In 40 years of being around gay people, I have rarely found one that doesn't have one of these "identifiers" for lack of a better word (many of them have told me i have very good "gaydar" so maybe I'm more attuned to people's outward manner). Obviously, such outward characteristics could easily cause them to be discriminated against in any number of ways and I applaud any efforts to end such childish prejudices, but we live in a pretty childish and intolerant society anyway.
Anyway, my question is this: Why are bisexuals included in the LGBT community? I've only known one person who briefly identified as bi until he realized that he's actually gay. I'm wondering what sort of discrimination bisexual people could possibly encounter because of their sexuality as opposed to the very real problems that gay, lesbian and transgendered people experience daily. My main reasoning here is that how on earth could you determine someone is bi without them actually telling you? I've asked my sister and my gay friends this question and none of them had a clue how to answer this. My personal opinion is that there are probably very few "true" bisexuals out there, just people that may be a bit confused or embarrassed about their sexuality, but that's just my feelings on the subject and I mean no offense to anybody reading this by writing that.
Any thoughts on this? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, just very curious as to how bisexuals came to be included in this grouping. Thanks!
The Philosopher
(895 posts)It's an interesting discussion, why a certain letter (although we're not letters) are included in the catch-all acronym we use (LGBT...QQA, etc.). And there's no real easy answer, that I've come across or thought of, that might satisfy it. Like that small, inch-long equation physicist keep searching for to explain all the workings and complexities of the universe. But, in short, it's because they're not straight. Sure, they have sex with the opposite sex at times, but they're attracted to the same-sex at the same time. They're not heterosexual. They're not straight. It's a false dichotomy, because they're not both gay and straight at different times. They're what we call bisexual. And they're discriminated against just as much as gays and lesbians. Sometimes even by other gays. They'll ask what you ask, why do they even belong with us? They even deny their existence. But bisexuals do exist. And, I'm speaking as host here, to suggest otherwise WILL NOT BE TOLERATED (I use caps not for you, but for others). And the way you tell is that sometimes they'll talk about their girlfriend. Later, they'll talk about their boyfriend. That's, generally, how you tell someone is a bisexual. It's the same way employers will figure out people are gays and lesbians and then fire them or make their job a living hell. Or, being nice, you could ask a bisexual and they'll respond, "I'm bisexual," (if they're nice). That works, too. Sure, to question exactly how many exist is an interest, I guess. But not when you're claiming they're not who they are. That, too, will not be tolerated.
Also, I'm afraid that "gaydar" thing is a bit of a problem. See, it's a stereotype. I know you're using it to say gay men and women are easier to spot than someone who puts their penis inside a woman or whatever. But it's offensive to suggest such a thing. Gays and lesbians don't look a certain way. It's like saying, "I can spot a heterosexual." You can't, you just assume you can. That's how those of us in the closet pass. That's how we protect ourselves from bigoted employers. We look just as much like heterosexuals as heterosexuals do. One could argue that it only comes up either because one wants to have sex with that gaydared person; or they find something wrong with a gay person and want to attract attention to it. Whatever, I'm not saying you're doing that. I'm just letting you know that using gaydar to argue your point is a bit insensitive. Because gaydar doesn't exist, so there's no reason to use it to prove that bisexuals can hide themselves.
As to your first paragraph, an argument doesn't have to be saucy to be relevant or made. However, when you use terms, phrases and even ideas that are insensitive, it will be pointed out to you. And despite how some like to portray us, we here in the LGBT forum like to give the benefit of the doubt. We'll point out that something you said is offensive and ask you not to, say, keep repeating it and tell us to go to hell. Which is why this post exist. You have expressed some sentiments that are insensitive. That's great, that's fine. We all make mistakes or stumble or do something clumsy or just plain don't know. No big deal. But I do have to point them out. As a host it's my job. Please don't suggest a member of the LGBT community isn't really who they are or that they even belong here. Please don't use stereotypes. Please do not suggest that it's okay to use a member of the LGBT community, even in abstract, is a fine way to poke fun at a hated individual. We request that you be sensitive to others, even if you disagree with them. If you can't, please don't say anything at all. Now, I don't mean get the hell out of our forum. No, I just mean, if you're having a certain discussion with someone and can't express yourself in a sensitive way, then just stop entertaining that discussion. Move on to another topic. Talk about the weather. Or Republicans trying to screw us over. Saying, "I don't mean to be offensive," isn't a license to keep being insensitive.
Please respect our members, all of them. If you don't, you will be blocked from participating here any further.
Thanks!
NICO9000
(970 posts)I probably should have just asked my question without all the extra verbiage, but I thought I should at least try to explain why I was asking it in the first place, however clumsily it came off.
qb
(5,924 posts)By definition, bisexual people are members of this group.
I have witnessed bisexuals getting grief from both heterosexuals and homosexuals who seem to despise those who do not fit into neat categories.
Regarding transgender people: using their identity as an epithet against anyone is hurtful.
In response to your statement about "true" bisexuals, a good rule of thumb is to accept what a person tells you about his or her identity or sexual orientation. It is insulting to suggest someone is "confused" about his or her sexuality.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)I don't need a tag, do I?
![]()
Duncan Grant
(8,920 posts)I'm glad these matters are receiving more attention (and better resolution). Keep up the good work!
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Fearless
(18,458 posts)Well done for the Admins IMHO. Well done.