Striving for Equality

[Goodbye Blue Monday]

Now, I do take issue that such a ruling -a ruling whose sentiment I insist, share, and agree with- is labeled as "equality" when it isn't, even if it's the right thing to do, which I said in the very post you quoted. But I have no need or desire to insult, persecute, or otherwise bash anybody. Do you think I want the topic/issue/situation open to discussion so I can hate on people? Because it seems to me you're under the impression that I want permission to call you names and make you feel horrible about yourself, and I do not want that at all. I'd like to know if there's anything I've said that makes you feel that way, so I can revise it and try to explain myself better.

I don't think you really get it. The very notion that gay equality is something that is "up for discussion and debate" is offensive to gay people.

To clarify my point of view, I don't think excepting a certain issue -repeat; any issue- from discussion falls under the definition of equality.

I don't think that it's the place of people who aren't LGBT to tell people who are what we should consider to constitute "equality."

I don't think censorship is ever a preferable method to healthy discussion. It's not about prohibiting gay-bashing (which I am in favor of, and was under the impression that was already forbidden), it's about prohibiting discussion. That's the part I don't agree with.

So I assume that if a white supremacist here wanted to start "a discussion" about whether black people should have the right to vote, you would be all in favor of him being able to do that, because otherwise it would be "censorship"? If a male chauvinist wanted to "just discuss" whether or not women can be as smart as men, you would stand up for him?

And I'm sorry, but saying that somebody can't weigh in on an issue because they don't understand it the way you do is a fallacy. Special Pleading, to be precise. That doesn't mean that you're not right, but I feel compelled to point it out.

As someone who is pretty familiar with logical fallacies, what Jewelfox is saying is not special pleading. She justified her point (relating it to how people don't make these arguments about other kinds of oppressions), and also, it's not like the expertise she has is some sort of "secret knowledge" that no one else has. People don't argue "special pleading" when someone with a Ph.D. in medicine indicates s/he might know more about how the flu vaccine works than someone who hasn't taken a biology class since high school. Likewise, it's not special pleading to assert LGBT people do, in fact, know more about what it's like to be an LGBT person and face anti-LGBT prejudice than straight people do. Because, duh. Of course we do.
You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of privilege and how it allows you to be ignorant of certain realities that less-privileged people face. Here are some of the specific examples of privileges straight people have. This is not some abstract concept like "common sense" (as would actually be a case of "special pleading"). The evidence is everywhere.
Lastly, no one is saying you can't weigh in at all. We're saying that LGBT people's opinions should have more weight, in the same way that an actual doctor's opinion should have more weight in a medical discussion than someone who just looked it up on WebMD.

 

[RaccoonGoon]

Something about this isn't jiving with me. It doesn't feel like "equality", to me, for some reason.

You guys know how I'd always joke about "The Bulbrargardan' Dystopia"? Welp, here we are, it seems.

I implore everybody who is hive-minding about this to take a step back and really look at this from both sides.

 

[blaiseful]

Saying hate in any form is wrong then bashing on others for disagreeing on whatever you believe is very hypercritical. Having your own opinion is a human right. That includes believing if homosexuality, bisexuality, or being transgender is a good or bad thing. I personally don't have a problem if a person is straight or gay or whatever, I just think people are entitled to their own opinion.

 

[Vhazhiphor]

I don't think you really get it. The very notion that gay equality is something that is "up for discussion and debate" is offensive to many gay people.

I never said that that gay equality should be up for discussion and debate. Gay equality should be a given. It shouldn't even be an issue at all. I'm sure I don't know what all can be said about LGBTQA, but I'm sure not all of it has to be negative. And I don't see why the topic as a whole should be banned, just because some people only have bad things to say.

I don't think that it's the place of people who aren't LGBT to tell people who are what we should consider to constitute "equality."

Equality is, as far as I understand, the state of all things being equal. That you and me, despite having different genders and sexualities, are both people, and have the same rights and so on. That if someone can discuss things about me, in a respectful manner, someone could also discuss things about you in a respectful manner. Equal opportunity, and all that. If I'm mistaken, I would much appreciate knowing what equality really means. This being the internet, I clarify that I'm not being sarcastic, I really would want to know if this definition is wrong, and if so, what the right one is.

So I assume that if a white supremacist here wanted to start "a discussion" about whether black people should have the right to vote, you would be all in favor of him being able to do that, because otherwise it would be "censorship"? If a male chauvinist wanted to "just discuss" whether or not women can be as smart as men, you would stand up for him?

If a white supremacist wanted to start that discussion, I see no other way of it going down other than with offensive arguments. So no, I would not.

If a man wanted to "just discuss" whether or not women can be as smart as men, I'd gladly go out and find sources that say that they can be, and present them to him. If it turns out he's a male chauvinist and he doesn't want a discussion so much as he wants a soapbox for his offensive views, then I would report him to the mods.

As someone who is pretty familiar with logical fallacies, what Jewelfox is saying is not special pleading. Special pleading is when you claim to have some special but intangible knowledge that you don't actually have. But if you actually do know more about a particular subject than someone else does, it's not a fallacy to point that out. And LGBT people do, in fact, know more about what it's like to be an LGBT person and face anti-LGBT than straight people do. You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of privilege and how it allows you to be ignorant of certain realities that less-privileged people face. Here are some of the specific examples of privileges straight people have.

Perhaps TvTropes isn't the most reliable source, but it seems a bit more friendly than Wikipedia, which is why I linked to that. I admit that I wasn't entirely certain that it was, but this line...

"This is fallacious because even if someone has certain expertise or is part of a specific group, they still have to provide evidence and cogent reasons for their position."

...may have thrown me off. It was an honest mistake; I apologize.

Lastly, no one is saying you can't weigh in at all. We're saying that LGBT people's opinions should have more weight, in the same way that an actual doctor's opinion should have more weight in a medical discussion than someone who just looked it up on WebMD.

What Jewelfox said ("Please, until you do understand, shut up. Everyone who wants to defend this. Just stop it."; emphasis mine) didn't sound to me like what you've just said, although perhaps I did misread her post.

 

[Goodbye Blue Monday]

If a white supremacist wanted to start that discussion, I see no other way of it going down other than with offensive arguments. So no, I would not.

How does a "debate" on marriage equality "go down" without people on the anti-gay side saying offensive things? How does a debate on women's intellectual equality "go down" without people on the "women are stupid" side saying offensive things?

And it's also easy for you to say that you'll just solve it with finding sources. As a woman and LGBT person, I'm really sick in these "debates" of having to constantly dig up sources over and over again to prove something that should be obvious. Again, I think this more casual attitude is coming from the privilege you have as someone who doesn't have to deal with this shit regularly.

As for the "what equality is" discussion: I would suggest reading the links I provided on privilege. It's not just about treating people the same; you also have to recognize that because we live in a biased society, not every gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. starts out at the same place, and you can't act like you're really giving people an equal chance by being blind to those differences and just doling out the same thing to everyone.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure no one ever said that gay political issues are not to be discussed at all. They said people can't be anti-gay in those discussions. Speaking as someone who spends a lot of time on LGBT-themed websites and even writes for one, I think you would be pleasantly surprised at how much potential there still is for lively, heated discussions on these issues where anti-gay opinions are not allowed. In fact, they tend to be much more productive and thought-provoking - and original. Nearly all anti-gay arguments are just the same ten or so things re-worded in new ways and, as Jewelfox said, most of us have heard them over and over again. They're the bottom of the barrel, dragging these discussions down, and it's when we scrape them off that we can actually make some progress.

I implore everybody who is hive-minding about this to take a step back and really look at this from both sides.

Nope, you don't have to give equal weight to both sides in every issue. In fact, while we're on the topic of logical fallacies, that's one.

Also, it's really arrogant to assume that when a lot of people are disagreeing with you, it must be that they're "hive-minding." Maybe there's just a really obvious point you're missing.

Keep in mind that the Bulba staff is very large and includes a lot of people with varying positions on this issue. I'm sure this policy was not something that was created without significant debate.

 

[Ultra Pidgeot]

As for the "what equality is" discussion: I would suggest reading the links I provided on privilege. It's not just about treating people the same; you also have to recognize that because we live in a biased society, not every gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. starts out at the same place, and you can't act like you're really giving people an equal chance by being blind to those differences and just doling out the same thing to everyone.

Um, that is exactly what I call equality. Justice is blind, yadda yadda, yadda. In an ideal, equal world, everyone gets the same treatment. Because the system should be blind to differences.

 

[Vhazhiphor]

How does a "debate" on marriage equality "go down" without people on the anti-gay side saying offensive things? How does a debate on women's intellectual equality "go down" without people on the "women are stupid" side saying offensive things?

Honestly? I have no idea. Maybe you have someone that hasn't been very well informed about these issues and is just honestly curious, and decides to ask about it here. I'm not a member of either one of those sides, and don't feel inclined to engage in the mental exercise of trying to find out how at this moment.

And it's also easy for you to say that you'll just solve it with finding sources. As a woman and LGBT person, I'm really sick in these "debates" of having to constantly dig up sources over and over again to prove something that should be obvious.

Maybe it's just me, but if I want to make a claim in such a debate, I willingly try to back up my claims, so as to give weight to my argument. Something that may be obvious to you or me isn't necessarily obvious to someone else. I think that's kind of what a debate or discussion, such as the one you mentioned about women's intelligence would be for. To show to those who are wrong how and why they are wrong.

Again, I think this more casual attitude is coming from the privilege you have as someone who doesn't have to deal with this shit regularly.

You're probably right about that.

As for the "what equality is" discussion: I would suggest reading the links I provided on privilege. It's not just about treating people the same; you also have to recognize that because we live in a biased society, not every gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. starts out at the same place, and you can't act like you're really giving people an equal chance by being blind to those differences and just doling out the same thing to everyone.

I'm reading it. It'll probably take me a while, considering I'm going to want to re-read it once or twice. So I'll reserve any responses on that until I'm done.

 

[Musashi]

Just a reminder that this is not a debate thread. If you want a debate take it to Nicoleta's Campaign Bus.

Posts that continue debating this in here will be dealt with.

 

[RaccoonGoon]

You are right, @Goodbye Blue Monday I'm so very sorry for suggesting people slow down and think about every part of an issue. Silly me.

And @Musashi Only one person is, erm, quoting what we say and telling us we're wrong. Tell her.

 

[Ultra Pidgeot]

Just a reminder that this is not a debate thread. If you want a debate take it to Nicoleta's Campaign Bus.

Posts that continue debating this in here will be dealt with.

There isn't a thread for this in the campaign bus, it requires permission to access, so not everyone has an equal chance to put in thier two cents. Also, debating this rule is not a political debate. So I'm confused.

 

[Goodbye Blue Monday]

ETA: @Musashi; Sorry, I didn't see the "this is not a debate thread" message until after this post went up. I'll stop.

As for the "what equality is" discussion: I would suggest reading the links I provided on privilege. It's not just about treating people the same; you also have to recognize that because we live in a biased society, not every gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. starts out at the same place, and you can't act like you're really giving people an equal chance by being blind to those differences and just doling out the same thing to everyone.

Um, that is exactly what I call equality. Justice is blind, yadda yadda, yadda. In an ideal, equal world, everyone gets the same treatment. Because the system should be blind to differences.

And that would be nice...if we lived in an ideal, equal world. To use an extremely obvious metaphor: Say you have a person who has a serious back injury and a person who does not. Do you think that giving them both a very heavy package to carry and expecting the same performance out of them to succeed in their job is "equality"? No, you realize that the person with a back injury can't perform the task as well, and giving them an equal shot at success in the job requires acknowledging those differences.

Prejudice based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. works much the same way. Even when the laws are equal, that doesn't make individuals' prejudice magically go away and, thus, people are going to make assumptions about you based on those stereotypes. For example: When handed two equally academically-gifted students of each gender, someone might assume the girl should be pushed more in writing and history because math and science are a "boy thing." Black people are more likely to deal with racial profiling from police than whites are because of how our media associates black people more with criminal activity. It's not true equality if you act like these cultural prejudices don't exist. It would be more helpful if you read the links I provided about privilege, but that's the gist of it.

Anyway, this discussion isn't really about privilege though so this is getting off-topic. The policy on this site is obviously an example of treating everyone the same, since it's not like heterosexual people's right to marry, or not be fired from work if they're open about their relationships, is ever up for discussion.

You are right, @Goodbye Blue Monday I'm so very sorry for suggesting people slow down and think about every part of an issue. Silly me.

The problem is that you're assuming people haven't already done that. You can carefully examine "both sides" and still come to the conclusion that one side has more truth to it than the other. Heck, a lot of "moderates" (not all, don't jump on me) are people who just assume the truth must be in the middle without really examining each side's positions.

There isn't a thread for this in the campaign bus, it requires permission to access, so not everyone has an equal chance to put in thier two cents. Also, debating this rule is not a political debate. So I'm confused.

It's not that hard to request access to the Campaign Bus; just PM Nicoleta01.

 

[Musashi]

You can request access to the Bus and start a homosexuality debate thread there.

 

[Ultra Pidgeot]

You can request access to the Bus and start a homosexuality debate thread there.

I'm not debating homosexuality...

It would be more helpful if you read the links I provided about privilege, but that's the gist of it.

I just realized how I misinterpreted one of your posts. Apologies.

 

[Fig]

This rule is not up for debate, Ultra Pidgeot.

We've been considering this issue for a long time - the idea was first proposed back in October 2011. It is not a product of "not thinking about it" - it's the product of a long, and sometime difficult reflection for many of us.

The decision is now made. The new policy is out.

 

[The Outrage]

Saying hate in any form is wrong then bashing on others for disagreeing on whatever you believe is very hypercritical. Having your own opinion is a human right. That includes believing if homosexuality, bisexuality, or being transgender is a good or bad thing. I personally don't have a problem if a person is straight or gay or whatever, I just think people are entitled to their own opinion.

.-.

The sheer amount of people who create accounts just to respond to this is astounding.

First, this policy is not intended to allow bashing of individuals who have anti-gay prejudices. Nowhere does it say that.

Second, while it takes the stance that non-heterosexual orientations are natural, it is not forcing people to take this stance--simply, it is saying the current rules apply to anti-gay bashing as well.

Third, this policy affects the forums. It's quite astounding the amount of people who, up until this point, have not made an account yet finally decide to weigh in on a policy that "affects" the forum community. Now I put that word in quotes because taking this open stance changes nothing in how this forum works or how the rules are implemented as the existing rules already encompass this. This policy is simply pointing it out due to (apparent) inconsistent application of the rules in the past. The only difference now is that people realize it and act all surprised and upset that a forum that did not tolerate any other form of prejudice, is now saying it's not tolerating this one.

I implore everybody who is hive-minding about this to take a step back and really look at this from both sides.

If you really looked at this issue, you'd realize that this changes nothing. Notice how there really isn't any rule changes? The only thing that's happened is clarification that existing rules do, contrary to what some people believe, apply to this issue.

Support groups/threads/blogs have always been welcome, while hate groups/threads/blogs have not. Harassing individuals is already covered under flaming and baiting rules, but now it is clear that, just as you cannot hide behind the guise of "debates" to espouse sexist, racist, and all around culturally insensitive beliefs, you cannot do it with homophobia as well.

What's ironic is the fifth point outlined in the original post states this:

Other forms of hatred, such as racism, and sexism, will generally be given the same treatment as above, although some topics may be altogether banned...

Yet this entire thread had been devoted to how the LGBT are getting "special treatment". People are saying justice should be blind, that it should not see differences. A policy that goes against all forms of discrimination does not see differences. A policy protecting certain groups from derogation but idly stands in the sidelines as other groups are opressed (i.e., a system in which sexism and racism is wrong, but homophobia is tolerated) is willfully blind of injustice.

 

[Caitlin]

I was beginning to wonder when this announcement would happen, and if it ever would. My job in News of the World just got a bit easier, methinks.

+1 lawful good for Bulbagarden staff. You're getting there, guys. =)

No! I'll always be chaotic neutral! *hiss*

 

[DerMißingno]

I was beginning to wonder when this announcement would happen, and if it ever would. My job in News of the World just got a bit easier, methinks.

+1 lawful good for Bulbagarden staff. You're getting there, guys. =)

No! I'll always be chaotic neutral! *hiss*

Lol no. Nice try. Though I'm not sure if I'll classify you as lawful good. You'll have to wait for my next blog

 

[Takoto]

It's really nice to see a website/forum outright prevent discrimination. It gives people comfort that they can be themselves and not worry about being attacked for what gender they like, or what gender they are/feel.

 

[Hector]

I'm definitely chaotic good (or evil depending on how you think of me).

But I've already spoken about my take on this.

For those who didn't see, I'll quote myself.

This is a moral stance we (meaning the staff of this site) have chosen to take. We want all users to be able to use the site freely without being made to feel unwelcome. Please bear in mind also that users may still use Nico’s Bus to debate this kind of thing if they are that keen to.

And as this is a private website (which means that freedom of speech laws do not apply), it is fully within our right to make such a rule on the forums.

It's 2012. It's time for people to realize that there are certain human rights that are to be respected. And quite frankly, there shouldn't even be a debate on this subject.

 

[Proxima Centauri B]

I applaud this. Everyone shoud be able to use this site and be themselves without fear of discrimination or harassment.