The trouble with cis moderators and trans forum members on PRSI

[B S Magnet]

I am genuinely disappointed by the moderation team.

The reason why we’re even here is because there are cis forum members in this discussion thread on PRSI who are wilfully injecting discriminatory, inflammatory, and negating remarks (as demonstrably uninformed takes) which are central to vilifying trans people who can’t hear it and antagonizing trans people in the forum who can. This is antisocial. It runs counter to constructive dialogue befitting of a discussion forum.

I’m also aware it’s designed to be that way. It’s designed to provoke the people marginalized in that demeaning rhetoric (that is, sent to the margins) whilst denying culpability after some of the people held to those margins get goaded into a responsive involvement.

MacRumors trans forum members have, several times, alerted the moderation team to this ongoing cissexist, trans-antagonistic, and misogynistic conduct being couched as a benign “debate” on our authenticity, bodies, and authority on the experiential knowledge to emerge from these — without a good-faith expectation that these cis people are inviting a sincerely civil exchange and/or respectiful inquiry with trans people. This is quite probably because the cis people in question never foresaw actual trans people entering into the discussion. Each time trans members alert the moderation team, trans members are being dismissed.

This, I’ve come to realize, is moderator praxis.

Whether this dismissal is being done by a cis moderator with an unconscious predilection for favouring fellow cis people, or whether it’s entirely intentional, is irrelevant.

MacRumors forum moderators are being alerted to the inflammatory climate of the thread, and they have been for some time. Trans forum members have guided moderators on how these asymmetrically refereed remarks are making it unpleasantly clear how trans and queer forum members, as subjects of our own experiential knowledge on being trans and/or queer (atop any of our other experiential qualifiers), are neither welcome nor meriting of a baseline of respect which its cis forum members take for granted.

I found it remarkable how my latest suspension (the second of two ever, both arising from this same discussion thread) is not because I called a person a pejorative or a slur, but because I described their unsolicited and combative conduct in terms of its transphobia, misogyny, and whiteness. By whiteness, I mean to say: abrasive conduct “defined not so much by what [whiteness] is, but rather, by what it is not… [a set of behaviours] understood through a process of exclusion or negation” of anyone who is not a member embodying that set of behaviour (Cole, 2019). One need not be white to uphold a structure of whiteness.

In other words, the whiteness I called out in the hostile remark, provoking my response to trigger my suspension, even after I filed multiple requests for refereed intervention which went ignored by cis moderators, employed a capital-O means of marking Others in a singularly driven context of negativity, inferiority, deviance, and/or exclusion (namely, by consciously not describing themselves in their inflammatory remarks). The remarks connoted their own structural superiority or normativity within the exchange by who was being negated categorically by it. That’s not only how whiteness works, it is also how cisnormativity works.

It’s also really messed up.

From MacRumors forums’ very own policy on fostering civil forum debate, clarified further by a pinned post:

“Hate speech and group slurs. We prohibit discrimination, abuse, threats or prejudice against a particular group, for example based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive.” [emphasis mine]​

A reasonable reading of this policy is it intends to recognize how the Other in forum discussions may be categorically excluded, omitted, or dis-invited from involvement or participation due to an open animus toward that Other. But I’m not sure the cis moderators see it the same way — even as statutes and jurisprudence in a mess of American jurisdictions (where MacRumors is based) have resolved since at least 1990 that either or both of sex/gender and sexual orientation most certainly includes the class of trans people.

When MacRumors cis forum members openly refuse to acknowledge a trans woman as a woman (with she/her pronouns); a trans man as a man (with he/him pronouns), and/or non-binary people as non-binary (with either they/them or pronouns they themselves use), they are complicit in fomenting a malicious climate of championing the ongoing dismissal and marginalization of gender and sexual minorities (GSMs) in the forums, such as trans people, at the partiality and centring of themselves as cis people.

By drafting policy for civil discussion, the tone and tenor of a discussion forum should want to incubate the social aspirations we hope to see in our world more widely — eschewing antisocial provocateurs who undermine those ends. We should want that in our neighbours, our co-workers, and our community members. Cis forum members on the MacRumors forums who run roughshod over those ideals, by dragging out antediluvian myths, widely discredited tropes, and consciously coded context aimed solely at undermining and antagonizing the legitimacy of the Other, violates that core tenet of inclusiveness.

To moderate a discussion topical of trans people, but started (and then over-represented) by cis people who are intent on making sure that cis people stay centred throughout and permitted by the moderators to interrogate trans people, by suspending the only two trans people who have spoken on our people’s own agency, is exactly how to incubate a conversation bereft of civility and push away the people who help to enrich the exchange of knowledge in these forums. To suspend marginalized people from that exchange only moves to impoverish that knowledge as it means to put those people in their place.

tl;dr: “Nothing about us without us.”

MacRumors forum moderators cannot oversee a forum for “debate” when you, as cis moderators, are loath to referee policy violations which are actively targeting trans and non-binary people, but are quick to quell the very trans people who are topically under siege in a discussion whose central driver is to provoke the continued undermining of our legitimacy and to thwart a spirit of camaraderie within the MacRumors forum community.

I don’t anticipate the moderators will cultivate a culture of improvement on here anytime soon.

 

[SuperMatt]

I also do not understand why the rules you pointed out are not being enforced. There are many posts targeting transgender individuals solely because of their gender. They are left up and the offenders continue to actively troll transgender forum members. When those being attacked get fed up and respond harshly, it is the victims being punished. As pointed out in another thread here in SFF, we have a news item about Zoom calls that was flooded with anti-transgender commentary because Zoom allows people to select their preferred pronouns now.

Thank you for shining a light on this. I think this community would be more welcoming if anti-LGBTQ speech was taken more seriously by the moderators.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

Obviously it is hard to tell in an online forum, but after a handful of threads recently, I wonder about the diversity of the moderation team and how much of an emphasis has been placed on creating a team that is completely representative of not only the MR community, but the wider community as well.

I would love to read that, again after multiple threads questioning moderation, MR is taking a look at its moderation policies as well as how it recruits moderators. I’d love to see more transparency. I don’t know if that is too much to ask or not.

 

[ErikGrim]

Can we get a diversity report on the mod team here? It's shocking the stuff that they leave up.

 

[panjandrum]

Whenever I've had a post edited or removed it's been *extremely* obvious that the moderation has come from a right-wing perspective. It hasn't happened too often, but in no case has it really been justified beyond 'this might offend a close-minded conservative.'

I've suspected for quite some time that at least some of the moderators have a considerable conservative slant.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Can we get a diversity report on the mod team here? It's shocking the stuff that they leave up.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no diversity in the mod team. There might be a little diversity in the site operators, but that's about it.

 

[ericgtr12]

Can we get a diversity report on the mod team here? It's shocking the stuff that they leave up.

While I don't expect anyone to publicly disclose their political stances, all one has to do is look around. Posts that are pro Trump, guns, right wing extremism are and have always been given favoritism here, it's mostly those who are outraged by it that are penalized.

Additionally, when major events like the murder of George Floyd happened, the site made a calculated decision not to address it publicly which itself is an actual statement. The owner, while a nice guy, is/was a medical doctor who allowed anti-maskers/vaxxers overrun his site.

All of these things also plagued major social media platforms and online forums, the difference is they all addressed it by no longer allowing it, MR has chosen to turn a blind eye and this is why PRSI is siloed off from the public and will die on the vine.

 

[I7guy]

I can understand why MacRumors didn't make a public decision on the murder of George Floyd, and this is my opinion. They are a news and rumors site, not an editorial and blog site. They reported on the news surrounding George Floyd, they allowed member discussions in PRSI. But apparently that isn't enough.

I also do not believe the staff (all 22 of them) are a bunch of pro Trump, right extremists that a give a passing nod to posts of that ilk and moderate other posts to the contrary.

And maybe the op may be correct about a broader representation races, religions and sexual preferences, but the same complaints seem to be surfacing that the moderators don't moderate hate speech. After all these threads and discussions I see there is a gap between what posters consider hate speech and what the moderators consider hate speech. It seems some want to censor some discussions. And certainly that is the right of the site owner and administrators. But after all this time this allegation of bias in moderation to me at least is unproven.

I read through the thread in question and to me many posts were trolling posts whereby if I were king of the hill I would moderate.

MacRumors isn't facebook, it isn't instagram and it appears the site owners don't want to pretend it is. It's been said time and time again by the staff, posters are responsible for their own conduct. Violating the rules by attempting to right a wrong doesn't fly here.

 

[nicho]

As far as I'm concerned, there's no diversity in the mod team. There might be a little diversity in the site operators, but that's about it.

"There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation"

 

[JayMysterio]

"There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation"

Of say a young person who hopes to stay in the only country they've ever known, but turns out their parents came to the country illegally?

It maybe 12 different experiences but all with one glaring commonality. And I'm not talking being human beings with similar skeletal structures.

There's a reason why some companies & places trip up messaging like trying to trademark things broadly like a rum or an entire day, it's often because of lack of awareness. A lack of awareness that can be cured by... diversity. Real diversity. That same group may not even be aware of a pink tax, because it's products they themselves use as well.

 

[SnacksGU]

I blocked that cesspool section awhile ago. From my viewpoint I thought it was way too liberal leaning in moderator. I’m sure everyone’s perspective is different. Tech sites like this normally attract a more left leaning audience.

Watch out when saying, ever, always, never, etc.

If this thread comes across as an attack and trying to stir the point it is not. If this thread comes across as opposite of someone of the previous points that is accurate.

 

[B S Magnet]

"There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation"

There can be 12 shades of green in a spectrum and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to radiate at different wavelength frequencies…

 

[rpmurray]

tl;dr: “Nothing about us without us.”

I do appreciate the tl;dr because the word salad that came before it was a little hard to get through as I was spending way too much time rolling my eyes at the choice of language that seemed to be there just to make the post appear scholarly (and just as indecipherable).

I feel it's good to hear from all sides, and the exclusion of any diminishes the value of the discourse, no matter how objectionable you find it. I'm also amongst the minority that feel it's better that people out themselves as to their true selves in their speech then to try to have them conform to a norm to which they don't adhere. It's better to expose to the light than to drive it underground just to have it appear in a more virulent form later. That's just me, feel free to ignore me, I'm just a small cog in the machine.

 

[B S Magnet]

I do appreciate the tl;dr because the word salad that came before it was a little hard to get through as I was spending way too much time rolling my eyes at the choice of language that seemed to be there just to make the post appear scholarly (and just as indecipherable).

“Word salad”, from where I am, just means you’re being lazy.

If what I posted above was too much for you to read, then it probably wasn’t meant for you to read. 💁‍♀️

 

[rpmurray]

then it probably wasn’t meant for you to read. 💁‍♀️

Sorry if my experiential knowledge did not conform to your "whiteness" as I was only speaking of my own agency and did not mean to trigger your antagonizing the legitimacy of the Other. As I said, feel free to ignore me.

 

[B S Magnet]

Sorry if my experiential knowledge did not conform to your "whiteness" as I was only speaking of my own agency and did not mean to trigger your antagonizing the legitimacy of the Other. As I said, feel free to ignore me.

I’m not the one between us rolling out the respectability-level whiteness behaviour.

And the last thing I need is some unsupportive, judgemental rando to grade me on how I communicate as if you’re my narcissistic, high-school dropout of an ex-parent who used to mock me as a kid for using “twenty-five-cent words” like it was some kind of sin.

As the old saying goes, “If you don’t have something constructive to say…” then don’t try to interject yourself into the middle of it.

 

[rpmurray]

I’m not the one between us rolling out the respectability-level whiteness behaviour.

And then the example of said behaviour:

And the last thing I need is some unsupportive, judgemental rando to grade me on how I communicate as if you’re my narcissistic, high-school dropout of an ex-parent who used to mock me as a kid for using “twenty-five-cent words” like it was some kind of sin.

I'm kind of confused about where you get "unsupportive, judgemental rando". I actually agree with most of what you're saying in your first post. I was just commenting that you went over the top in your choice of how to couch your argument. Nothing spurs the average citizen to instant contrarianism more than when you talk down to them like an elitist. You may get agreement from the echo chamber of the like minded but that will not ultimately advance your cause.

 

[B S Magnet]

I'm kind of confused about where you get "unsupportive, judgemental rando".

Sounds like you are.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying in your first post. I was just commenting that you went over the top in your choice of how to couch your argument.

Tone policing. Aw heck aw dang you’ve pulled me over. My hands are up, officer.

Next time? I’ll remember I need to be chastised should I express my disgust at actual crap like a culture of misogyny, whiteness, and cisnormativity carrying on without active forum moderation in keeping with expressed policy (on the same web site where I come to learn from and share my knowledge on stuff like vintage Macs with a small group of folks who are, on the whole, decent people and have nothing to do with the sideshow called PRSI).

Why should I be scolded? Because, heaven forfend, not only Karen Regular here, but also a toilet of a forum, which has absolutely zero to do with Apple products or services (and everything to do with letting privileged “average” folks let hang out their white/cis/het/fascist supremacist trash like they’re not wearing any unders), dislikes my choice of words (!!!) as they cavalierly dictate bad takes about people they consider to be beneath them and in need of being regulated (by them and theirs, obviously). Awesome proposition.

Hard pass. I knew from the outset that anything I posted above the other day would make no difference. If anything, the post is indexed now and future products (i.e., future users of this monetized web site, including queer and trans people) will know to skip MR and maybe look elsewhere for advice and community support on Apple stuff.

Nothing spurs the average citizen to instant contrarianism more than when you talk down to them like an elitist. You may get agreement from the echo chamber of the like minded but that will not ultimately advance your cause.

Well heck, guess what? “Average citizens” are welcome to enjoy the privilege of going about their average, boring af lives of average birthright, average mortgages, and average inheritances all they want in Medianville, U.S.A. — just as long as they don’t consciously go about disrupting the lives of extraordinary people in their wake. Amazingly, it costs them absolutely nothing to hold their average tongues.

I think the word you were looking for isn’t “average”. It’s mediocre.

 

[arn]

Feedback received. This is spinning off topic.