every time I see someone post that "trans rules of engagement" article, I'm reminded of the two times I've seen that sort of approach actually implemented:
-
every time I see someone post that "trans rules of engagement" article, I'm reminded of the two times I've seen that sort of approach actually implemented:
the "lashon hara" shit on eightpoint, by Laurelai Bailey; and
that "social contract" by a bunch of trans micro-celebs, several of whom turned out to be involved in serial sexual assault.
in both cases, to the surprise of nobody who knows anything about how abuse culture works in queer and radical spaces, a blanket policy of "don't talk shit about people" served primarily to allow abusers access to a pool of potential victims, all while silencing the people they hurt.
fighting abuse culture means protecting past, present, and future victims from abusers - and that necessarily involves talking openly about what they've done.
@YKantRachelRead i am kind of sympathetic to the motives here. But the way forward is we need to find a way for the culture at large to be willing to see trans people as individuals, instead of leaping to blame transness for any nasty thing any particular person does
be willing to employ and house trans people
be willing to give us medical care
because also part of the reasons predators get easy access to victims is the entirety of society has been, (according to the epstein files, very deliberately) engineered to push trans women out of every space except those easily available to predators
-
every time I see someone post that "trans rules of engagement" article, I'm reminded of the two times I've seen that sort of approach actually implemented:
the "lashon hara" shit on eightpoint, by Laurelai Bailey; and
that "social contract" by a bunch of trans micro-celebs, several of whom turned out to be involved in serial sexual assault.
in both cases, to the surprise of nobody who knows anything about how abuse culture works in queer and radical spaces, a blanket policy of "don't talk shit about people" served primarily to allow abusers access to a pool of potential victims, all while silencing the people they hurt.
fighting abuse culture means protecting past, present, and future victims from abusers - and that necessarily involves talking openly about what they've done.
to be clear, not publicly shit-talking others, and back-channeling conversations, is a great approach for resolving conflict.
it's, let's say, not so great when someone is an abuser. dealing with abusers doesn't involve resolving conflict so much as protecting others from the abuser. and the latter requires open communication.
-
to be clear, not publicly shit-talking others, and back-channeling conversations, is a great approach for resolving conflict.
it's, let's say, not so great when someone is an abuser. dealing with abusers doesn't involve resolving conflict so much as protecting others from the abuser. and the latter requires open communication.
@YKantRachelRead it doesn't help that there is a very strong reluctance in queer spaces to differentiate between abuse and conflict -
every time I see someone post that "trans rules of engagement" article, I'm reminded of the two times I've seen that sort of approach actually implemented:
the "lashon hara" shit on eightpoint, by Laurelai Bailey; and
that "social contract" by a bunch of trans micro-celebs, several of whom turned out to be involved in serial sexual assault.
in both cases, to the surprise of nobody who knows anything about how abuse culture works in queer and radical spaces, a blanket policy of "don't talk shit about people" served primarily to allow abusers access to a pool of potential victims, all while silencing the people they hurt.
fighting abuse culture means protecting past, present, and future victims from abusers - and that necessarily involves talking openly about what they've done.
@YKantRachelRead@social.treehouse.systems I think people forget that trans rules of engagement says to resolve things privately when possible
And sometime it isn’t
-
@YKantRachelRead it doesn't help that there is a very strong reluctance in queer spaces to differentiate between abuse and conflict
We're indoctrinated into avoiding conflict for fear of being labeled as abusers.
-
@YKantRachelRead it doesn't help that there is a very strong reluctance in queer spaces to differentiate between abuse and conflict
@mira yep, I was going to add something like: "the flip side of 'conflict is not abuse' is, 'abuse is not conflict.'" I've been on the wrong side of people trying to treat abuse as a conflict to be resolved, rather than as violence being done to me, many times throughout my life.
-
We're indoctrinated into avoiding conflict for fear of being labeled as abusers.
@angelastella @mira I wish more people realized that "abuser" doesn't mean "person who's rude or mean on the internet," but instead someone who's done certain types of interpersonal domestic violence to someone else
-
@YKantRachelRead@social.treehouse.systems I think people forget that trans rules of engagement says to resolve things privately when possible
And sometime it isn’t
@TransTina yep, and also, like I said in another reply, abuse isn't a resolvable thing except for protecting others from the abuser
-
@TransTina yep, and also, like I said in another reply, abuse isn't a resolvable thing except for protecting others from the abuser
@YKantRachelRead@social.treehouse.systems I… don’t think I agree with that, at least not fully.
I don’t think “abuser” is category, exactly, abuse is an action and it’s an action we’re all capable of. Denying that is a huge part of the problem in so, so many spaces. More than that, though, I think some people who act abusively can actually be stopped by being confronted and challenged. In these cases, I don’t think this needs to be something public. I suppose one could argue that that isn’t really abuse, but that feels “no true Scotsmen” to me.
Idk, just my 2 cents. I get where you’re coming from, though.
-
@YKantRachelRead@social.treehouse.systems I… don’t think I agree with that, at least not fully.
I don’t think “abuser” is category, exactly, abuse is an action and it’s an action we’re all capable of. Denying that is a huge part of the problem in so, so many spaces. More than that, though, I think some people who act abusively can actually be stopped by being confronted and challenged. In these cases, I don’t think this needs to be something public. I suppose one could argue that that isn’t really abuse, but that feels “no true Scotsmen” to me.
Idk, just my 2 cents. I get where you’re coming from, though.
@TransTina I see where you're coming from. and also, I'm skeptical of the idea that we're being too hard on people committing abuse when most abuse goes unreported, and when the bulk of abuse that is reported gets handwaved away, swept under the rug, and/or treated as a resolvable conflict in which the victim shares some responsibility.
I've been abused multiple times in my life, and only come out publicly about one of my abusers - and nobody believed me enough to make any difference.
I feel like a lot of the sentiment otherwise comes from people's fear of being unjustly labeled as abusers, which is a valid fear in queer communities where pop-psycology terms are thrown around without regard for the implications. and also, that's something requiring a cultural change that has nothing to do with abuse or abusers except in a very tangential sense.
-
to be clear, not publicly shit-talking others, and back-channeling conversations, is a great approach for resolving conflict.
it's, let's say, not so great when someone is an abuser. dealing with abusers doesn't involve resolving conflict so much as protecting others from the abuser. and the latter requires open communication.
@YKantRachelRead@social.treehouse.systems I've literally seen this go both ways, time and time again: an abuser is hidden or defended because of their notoriety or their victim was messy, and a victim or target is accused of abuse to deflect or exert community pressure on inter-personal conflict.
Part of problem is that we - the community - treats all accusations of abuse as equally 100% evil. This tends to leave little room for acknowledgement, change or restoration for those who can do so. It also tends to dissuade further scrutiny by the community, as every conflict becomes polarized around "who do you believe" and give preference to those who disclose first. The fact is the worst abusers are the ones who know how to manipulate community optics to serve their own narratives. And it's these people we have to be most wary of.
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
-
@YKantRachelRead@social.treehouse.systems I've literally seen this go both ways, time and time again: an abuser is hidden or defended because of their notoriety or their victim was messy, and a victim or target is accused of abuse to deflect or exert community pressure on inter-personal conflict.
Part of problem is that we - the community - treats all accusations of abuse as equally 100% evil. This tends to leave little room for acknowledgement, change or restoration for those who can do so. It also tends to dissuade further scrutiny by the community, as every conflict becomes polarized around "who do you believe" and give preference to those who disclose first. The fact is the worst abusers are the ones who know how to manipulate community optics to serve their own narratives. And it's these people we have to be most wary of.
@steff @YKantRachelRead we've been told by a local trans girl that "accountability" means, to her, that she doesnt have to listen to anything we say if it makes her uncomfortable, and that while she's been in our position before, she has no empathy for us, fuck you, got mine, and we just need to go away and leave her alone.
-
@YKantRachelRead@social.treehouse.systems I've literally seen this go both ways, time and time again: an abuser is hidden or defended because of their notoriety or their victim was messy, and a victim or target is accused of abuse to deflect or exert community pressure on inter-personal conflict.
Part of problem is that we - the community - treats all accusations of abuse as equally 100% evil. This tends to leave little room for acknowledgement, change or restoration for those who can do so. It also tends to dissuade further scrutiny by the community, as every conflict becomes polarized around "who do you believe" and give preference to those who disclose first. The fact is the worst abusers are the ones who know how to manipulate community optics to serve their own narratives. And it's these people we have to be most wary of.
The fact is the worst abusers are the ones who know how to manipulate community optics to serve their own narratives. And it’s these people we have to be most wary of.
yes, this! the ones I'm personally most wary of are the Missing Stairs - the people for whom others know what they've done, but they're shielded from consequences because they're a Pillar of the Community and have friends with similar amounts of social clout.
-
The fact is the worst abusers are the ones who know how to manipulate community optics to serve their own narratives. And it’s these people we have to be most wary of.
yes, this! the ones I'm personally most wary of are the Missing Stairs - the people for whom others know what they've done, but they're shielded from consequences because they're a Pillar of the Community and have friends with similar amounts of social clout.
@YKantRachelRead@social.treehouse.systems Yeah.. I've seen enough "pillars of the community" who've manipulate newer members for their own benefit, and literally embezzle funds from community projects, that I am always wary of people who are put on a pedestal.
