this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
28 points (91.2% liked)
Asklemmy
45236 readers
881 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I chose blahaj not just because I support our trans brothers, sisters, and non-binaries, but also explicitly because it does not federate downvotes.
There's a massive difference in how it feels to only see upvotes alone.
If you consider upvotes but ignore downvotes wouldn't that give you quite a weird picture in case of controversial posts? Assuming there's a racist or transphobic post with 100 downvotes and 5 upvotes, would that be displayed as +5? Or does it not show any votes at all?
It displays as +5.
That stuff just gets removed. Admin and mods on blahaj don't fuck around, really.
Thanks for the explanation. Maybe my example was too extreme but unless they remove everything that's even slightly controversial, that can give a pretty wrong impression IMO. Wouldn't be for me at least.
When it looks like this
You can still tell.
Sometimes that's just the up/downvote train. Sometimes people will just see the first couple of comments in an argument and just downvote/upvote alternatingly. Despite the idea that the votes are usually for what contributes to discussion, and not agree/disagree votes...
As @[email protected] got at, it encourages ratioing and directly countering instead of silently downvoting. Bad takes are more directly combatted, and furthermore minority groups can't be downvote harrassed.
I like the idea of an instance not having down votes that way. I assume that you could go to another instance and participate and no one could down vote you
Why No supporting us non binary trans people :'(
Is 'non binary trans' a thing? I hope I don't offense anyone but so far I though...
If you're non-binary what do you transition from/to?
Transgender is a gender thats different from what your assigned at birth. Not binary. Can be any gender.
So if I'm born male and identify non-binary, that would be considered trans as well? If I got that right my definition of trans was apparantly too binary. :D
If you are assigned male at birth yes, remember that sex and gender are different things.
Trans just basically means your not the gender you was assigned at birth. So yes it was to binary and thank you for recognizing that. Very much appreciated
Thank you for the explanation!
Edit: If you don't mind a follow-on question: Is my former binary definition applicable when we're talking about 'transsexual' rather then 'transgender'? And when someone says just 'trans' in the queer community without any suffix, does that typically refer to -gender or -sexual?
Transsexual is an old, negatively coded word (with use as far back as the Rocky Horror Picture Show in 1975). Transgender is the preferred nomenclature.
It was a derogatory term that implies that being transgender has something to do with sex and not an expression of gender.
Asexuals, who are disinterested in sex, can be transgender. Calling them a "transsexual" implies that there is a sexual expression happening.
When you express your gender (whatever it is), do you feel like you are being sexual? I would wager most don't think they're being sexual simply walking around being who they are.
That's why the term for non-trans people is "cisgender" not "cissexual."
Personally, I'm not offended when referred to as '-sexual'. In general, I don't see my gender as an important part of my identity. I guess I'm 'just' cis male but I don't see that as restrictive in any way.
But thanks for your explanation! Good to know that there's a negative connotation tied to that term and other people might be offended. I'll try to keep it in in mind for future discussions. :)
I'm sorry I didn't mean to imply I didn't support the non-binary among us, that was bad phrasing on my part. Of course I support their right to be who they are.
Totally understandable, just was pointing it out. :) no worries