I am somewhat saddened this morning to realize that censorship has reared it's ugly head here.
I posted a blog late last night regarding the most recent reversal made by the Trump administration, and commented about a posting I had found on the LinkedIn site - a comment which was not only anti-TG, but ignorant and hurtful.
As of this morning, the post has been removed from the home page. Additionally, one of my friends here commented to me that she attempted to reply to my comment but was unable to do so. Evidently, in the interim between my post and it's removal from the home page, several people did in fact comment.
To those who saw it, I thank you for your supportive comments. To those who missed it, I am deeply worried that it was removed. How far will the rot spread? When our freedom of speech is denied, we are all lost. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
The fact that I, a registered Republican, did not vote for Mr. Trump, nor do I support his chaotic and arrogant approach to the office of President, should show that there are many Americans who are not happy. Unfortunately we are stuck with the man for four years - or until his antics go too far and he commits an impeachable offense. Something which many legal experts believe he already has. As Dan Rather reminded us at the end of each of his broadcasts........."Courage."
D
Comments
Huh? It's still there
Go to Blogs and it is not far down.
I suspect Erin removed it from the front page because content, but it is still easily accessible.
Penny
PS I suspect you mean censorship? Sensorship could have a totally different meaning...
As to the spelling......
Yes, you are correct - damn my i-Pad to hell, lol. You have to love autocorrect, and what makes it worse is that I even proofread it and didn't catch the error.
Thanks for catching it for me.
D
D. Eden
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
Politics
Politics is a kettle waiting to boil or a powder key waiting to explode. Many times here it has been shown that even if it starts off as a friendly debate or question it becomes a vitriol of hate an anger not just towards one but towards many. Many people had their feelings hurt.
There is a fine line on what people can deem as freedom of speech. I won't debate it here. I fought for that right, but with all rights there is a need for temperament as many will take it to extremes using it as a cover blanket which has been done in many places.
Many don't like rules and feel justified that they can break them. I'm not saying you are, only that rules are a necessity of life else we won't be civilized. Yet we go to extremes to show how uncivilized we can be claiming that right.
I did read it and yes I can say it was interesting, but I could see where it would spark a heated debate and possible cause unwanted feelings hurt. We all have our views of politics and truthfully I miss the debates between me and my mother. It could be heated but we learned to respect the others views. This can't be said of others as they feel its a no holds back bar fight to 'prove' their point to where it becomes nothing more than a derogatory game of name calling.
You may see it as a deprivation of your freedom of right to speak but for Erin it's also her place to keep this a friendly environment for others to come. Its a fine line to toe.
Politics?
Politics is broadly seen as the process of make rules that apply to the whole. As such the discussion of transgender bathrooms with regards to Trumps directive, is politics. The Politics that should be avoided by BC is a much narrower definition that means the process of attaining power.
If someone were to throw out a blog stating Trump is an ass . . . that would be out of place here.
Discussing the ramifications of Trump's bathroom directive is not.
We are a people who are struggling to achieve acceptance. Through no fault of our own we have become a political football. This site exists in part to relieve the pain brought on by the unnecessary guilt we feel because we are who we are. We need to remind each other that there is absolutely NO bases in fact that would cause Trump and Sessions to make this move. They're simply pandering. There have been absolutely no negative issues resulting from transgender use of bathrooms in schools . . . NONE! Trump ans Sessions are hiding behind the cynical position that this should be a state's issue -- when they're well aware that battle was settled fifty years ago when the major civil rights laws were passed.
I don't like Trump. I don't like Sessions. I don't like Hillary. I'm not even that big of fan of Joe Biden. (If you look to how he handled Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas approval hearings you will understand that he's no saint. Politicians are the bunk.)
We need to remind each other that in October Pew Research indicated that 51% of our population believe that people should use the bathroom with which they identify. 46% believe they should use the one that matches their birth certificate. When you factor in the nonsense that demagogues have been spewing regarding this issue it's surprising that the negative number isn't higher.
I don't hate those who hate me. However . . . now is the time for us to support one another, not to hide.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
I am not against
I am not against the talking of politics that has relevance. Nor will I attack you for whichever party you choose to be a part of. That is your given right and choice. What I have commented on and as you have pointed out is how people are using politics in a broad sense of the term to convey their wants and beliefs. Don't believe me look at how people lump their views in a political debate claiming later it was just a political view.
Now that said, what had happened in the removed post and is just what you have just stated. You stated your personal view of the person as president as well as with what is going on within the LBGT community. Hence you placed in your view of the man as well as the institution as a whole. Unlike you that person stated more about the person elected than I found justified here.
For me I do find it disturbing about the person but not the office in general. I will support the office that was put in place by the people, but not the person if that person uses it for their own personal vendetta against others which other presidents have done. In other words I hold the office in a higher stature as the person who is in place is nothing more than an elected official who unfortunately can cause a great of harm in that short period they are in place to only have it change hands once again when a new official is elected. Its a ship in a sea of change that can have no rudder or can be left to flounder if not watched. It is an institution that unfortunately will be dragged through mud/cement/asphalt as with any other forms of manner to bring it down by any given individual who is in disagreement with those in charge.
Some claim that he is not our president and won't acknowledge him as such. So they are saying in essence there is no person in our highest office because they did not elect him and so is therefore vacant. That's an absurd assumption in that anyone in congress is not a representative of their state because the one they wanted was not elected. They are in denial of it, not willing to accept it even when he took the oath of office.
I will always defend the office, but that doesn't mean I will defend someone in that office if I find them to be going against the law or his personal views for their own personal gains.
A distinction I, at last, feel I must make.
First of all: though I found your initial blog to be very vocal in your distaste for our president, I did not find it offensive (as someone who refused to vote for either of the candidates on offer because both were worthless.) That said...
"Freedom of speech" gets bandied about a lot on here when it comes to defending content that either gets demoted off the front page or gets removed for violating the site's TOS.
Here's the thing: freedom of speech means you have the right to say what you want, when you want. It's really a very silly freedom to have, since it's not something that can be taken away. Rather, what people tend to assume is granted by freedom of speech is a kind of freedom from consequence, the idea that what you say can not have consequences. This is not, indeed, the case: what you say matters, and whether that be in a public venue (which is what the "freedom" actually protects) or a private one, such as BC, considering the nature of your words is paramount. After all, though we DO have freedom of speech, one CAN still be taken down for public indecency, inciting a riot, or many other things that, in an abstract way, are intended to make people be responsible with their freedoms.
To wit, "freedom of speech" in no way means that someone else isn't free to punch you in the nose; it just means you can still sue them if they do so.
In the case of BCTS, though... honestly? BCTS is NOT a location for free speech, any further than Erin herself allows it (and she is, indeed, VERY liberal in what she allows.) It is, as the rules and pages state, "a friendly place to read, write, and discuss transgender fiction." As such, any content that is not directly related to transgender fiction -- offensive or not -- TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, falls out of the realm of what is specifically protected by the site's own charter.
Erin doesn't sensor. She doesn't talk down or shush those she disagrees with: if so, the site would have far less users and content than it does.
Erin DOES moderate. Her goal is to maintain the essence of what the site is intended for. So, for anyone who posts something and sees it become demoted/deleted/etc., before complaining, thing about the following 3 questions?
1: Is it friendly?
2. Is it relevant to the world of transgender fiction?
3. If it is not either of the first two, is it possible it could cause issues with or within the community?
In regards to your initial post: it was not particularly friendly. Your opinions are yours (and I am by no means saying they are wrong,) but BCTS is not the place for political discussions most of the time specifically because they are almost NEVER friendly. Likewise, your bringing it up, while relevant to the TG community as a whole (at least somewhat, given your post included nothing about the actual issue Trump had, but rather simply a rant about him in general,) was not phrased in a way that made it apply to transgender fiction in any real way.
Erin is very, VERY lax most of the time in the content she allows on the site. That said, anything that doesn't specifically fall under reading, writing, or discussing transgender fiction... is absolutely fair game to be moderated out.
Freedom of speech does not mean that your seven-page Gary Coleman/Fat Albert slashfic won't get moderated out of the comments of a Huffington Post article on pork bellies. It just means you're free to write it in the first place.
Melanie E.
Understood on the Holmes SCOTUS reference but...
There are cases in the media that are VERY borderline in provoking an attack by not using dog whistle language but outright inflammatory language that has not been called "Fire In a Crowded Theater".
To those who commented on the meaning of free speech.......
I am fully aware of the meaning of free speech and the implications therein involved - including what can be said, when and where it can be expressed, and what defines offensiveness.
My point in writing it was to illustrate the fact that the use of a professional forum by a person who is considered to be educated, and even more is a member of a minority group, to express a vitriolic point of view was inappropriate. I was under the impression that my comment would be understood for what it was here on this site, but apparently that was not a universally held opinion.
As a Republican, I have endured the slings and arrows of many a liberal for the past decade without cause or justification. Many liberals immediately stereotype me as some ultra-conservative red neck as soon as they see the R word, and the attack commences forthwith. Perhaps I should have remembered that.
I know the rules of the site here, and have no issue with them - and have no desire to either start or participate in a heated debate over politics. I guess it never occurred to me that anyone here would in fact disagree with what I said.
I have, and always will, defend the right of anyone to express their opinion - whether I agree with it or not. And yeah, it truly is difficult at times to do so, but I swore an oath many years ago and I meant every word I said when I did so. Free and open debate is what made this country, and what will keep it great. Unfortunately, certain members of the current administration don't agree, what with their claims of fake news and their threats to bar press agencies from access.
The fifth estate is what keeps our government honest, and the loss of that element of our society would weaken and harm our form of government.
D
D. Eden
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
Don't disagree on it being a ridiculous stereotype but...
Eisenhower is dead, Roosevelt is dead, Lincoln is dead, Goldwater is dead, etc. Pretty much most of the noteworthy moderates are dead or have been pushed to the side. I'm not saying moderates from a biased point of view, I'm saying look at the platforms of some of these Republicans from the past, compare them to where people stand on the polls(when asked as objectively, see: non-charged language, as possible) then and even now.
I've considered becoming a Republican then running expressly on a platform comparable to Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower(live in a Republican dominated state), see what happens.
I had read your post...
and while I haven't had time to research the issue and make sure what is being told on TV is correct and told in an unbiased from, I would have to say that I agree with you and I feel this is a step backwards and wrong. Of course this all ties into the fact that the sensationalized reports on TV are correct.
That being said, BC is a great place to use polite and informed exposition to show others your point of view on an issue.
I hate to say it but in your blog you spent more time attacking the man, instead of explaining the problem and why you disagreed or referencing any unbiased reports that gave us any more information on the issue.
This has been a heated issue since the new law was passed. Even my neighbor, who is quite liberal on most subjects told me she would go nuts if she saw some man in a dress follow her daughter into a women only bathroom. Of course this lead to a long discussion with her, where I began by saying that if I saw someone with my looks in a dress (Think of Santa Clause in drag) going into a women's bathroom, I would be very concerned and probably stop that person from entering.
Then I went on to ask if someone entered a bathroom that she was in, that to all outward appearances looked female, how would she know it wasn't a genetic woman?
Of course she came back saying that there would be no way she could tell.
I work and know many people that are highly conservative. People that have been against this law since it came out. And I can say what they are afraid of is the pervert that will dress up as a woman so that they can use the law to get their jollies.
I've seen pictures of many of you here and I can say that I would never think you were anything but what you present if I didn't know and would never question you walking into the ladies room.
What we need to to find a compromise that keeps the child molesters, rapists and perverts not covered under those two titles, from putting on a dress and entering the ladies room.
We the willing, led by the unsure. Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
We are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
The simplest compromise......
And one to the best of my knowledge that hasn't been proposed is that those individuals under the care of a physician or professional therapist due to gender dysphoria should be allowed to use the bathroom for the gender they identify with. This would completely eliminate the issue of the so-called "man in a dress".
As to those women who worry about being assaulted by a transgender individual in the ladies room, there is a better chance of being assaulted by a genetically female lesbian than there is of being assaulted by a transgender individual.
How do they propose to protect their daughters from that?
This of course totally ignores the fact that there is not one single reported instance of a transgender individual attacking another woman in the bathroom. However, there are thousands of instances of transgender individuals being attacked, so let's force trans women to use the men's room where they are even more susceptible to attack. Right?
As I repeatedly stated the point of my original blog is being totally missed in this discussion. My blog was intended as a statement regarding the absurdity of using a professional site to pass on hateful and ignorant comments regarding trans people.
D
D. Eden
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
Blog yes, comments no
I am in favor of political statements in blogs. I would even accept a posting from someone anti-trans, so long as it wasn't just someone trying to create an uproar (which it would). We deserve the ability to have discourse, if we are to grow as people. The only exception might be a blog that attacks a person.
I do feel that keeping politics out of story comments is a proper step, though.
We are lucky that we have a stable and caring gatekeeper for the site, and that is why it is large and growing. Thanks to Erin.
Dawn
Political comments?
I disagree about having them here. While many issues regarding the LGBTQ community are in the news of late and are appropriate for the site, too many seem to use those issues as a soapbox to attack political figures for reasons other than the issue.
I know that most of the people here probably did not vote for Trump and hate that he won. Guess what I didn't vote for Obama, but I never once screamed and ranted about how he was the anti-christ or tried to form a protest on President's day. Actually truth be told, I think as a man Obama was a breath of fresh air in comparison to other presidents the democratic party has given us in the resent past. There were no whitewater or inappropriate sexual conduct, in fact he was the model husband and father. It was his policies I disagreed with.
There were many blogs here that I wanted so badly to comment on, to tell you the consequences of what some policies Obama enacted would cause, but I bit my tongue (Erin quickly took my post down when I didn't) This wasn't because I was wrong, it was because these types of discussions can become heated and out of control faster than you can imagine.
The problem is we have people that refuse to listen to reason. No one has the authority to grab you off the street and check to see what you do or don't have inside your underwear. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, people are going to assume it is a duck.
In the same respect if it looks like a wolf with a sheep's skin on it's back, people are going to question it when it tries to get close to the flock of sheep.
We the willing, led by the unsure. Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
We are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
Neutral territory.
My opinion, such as it matters, is that this site should be neutral territory. people that visit this site fall all over the political and cultural spectrum, and as such we have to tolerate differing opinions.
My personal opinion on another members political views means diddly, and vice versa. My opinion on authors is different. If I don't like what the write I just don't read their works.
Have to follow the rules here, in spirit as well as the letter, or it will ruin a great community..