luiz vs Vincour

[Bootstoots]

Luiz is appealing an infraction given by Vincour for this post, which reads

Presidential pardons do seem completely ridiculous and against the separation of powers. But I suppose you're happy Obama pardoned Bradley Manning.

Moderator Action: There is no need to intentionally misgender someone. Since you're aware of Manning's case as well as her subsequent pardon, you are also aware that she is not Bradley Manning. Chelsea Manning will suffice. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

The subsequent PM exchange can be found either in this picture link or below:

1. luiz,
   
   Your actions in this message (Arpaio Pardoned) are not appropriate:
   ↑
   What a well-functioning system American "justice" is
   Presidential pardons do seem completely ridiculous and against the separation of powers. But I suppose you're happy Obama pardoned Bradley Manning.President Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning. There is no need to misgender someone, especially when the person's transition was highly publicized. It is unlikely that you knew of Manning's leaking and subsequent pardon without knowing about the gender transition. As you know, transphobia is highly discouraged on CFC.
   
   This is a two point infraction which will expire in a month.
   
   - Vincour
   
   Vincour, Today at 1:55 PMReport
   Reply
   
   
2. 
   luizTrendy Revolutionary
   Joined:
   Nov 19, 2001
   Messages:
   18,825
   WHAT???
   ARE YOU KIDDING?
   Of all the ridiculous, arbitrary and partisan moderation I've seen on CFC over the last 16 years, thus is by far the dumbest.
   Look, pal, I was not making any political statement. Manning is still usually called Bradley Manning in Brazilian newspapers, so I just used the name I'm most familiar with, becaue I typed that post in 5 seconds on my phone. It was not offensive to anyone with half a brain.
   
   I do not appreciate being accused of bigotry. I demand an apology.
   
   luiz, Today at 2:06 PMEditReport
   Reply
   
   
3. 
   VincourModeratorModerator
   Joined:
   Nov 19, 2006
   Messages:
   9,960
   All you have done in this reply is tell me that Brazilian newspapers are publishing transphobic rhetoric. There is no avenue here where my apology is required; CFC has cracked down on transphobic language since before I became a moderator this year. This really is not new or sudden.
   
   Intentionally misgendering someone is transphobic. You are refusing to acknowledge their identity. Because your local newspaper misgenders someone regularly does not excuse you of misgendering that person, especially when you are always very adamant in threads on CFC to check different sources on the internet.
   
   Vincour, Today at 2:09 PMReport
   Reply
   
   
4. 
   luizTrendy Revolutionary
   Joined:
   Nov 19, 2001
   Messages:
   18,825
   You are trolling. Can I report you? As I said, I was not deliberately trying to offend Manning or anyone else, I just typed a post in 5 seconds using the name I'm familiar with. There's no world in which this is offensive. You're accusing me of transphobia even though all I did was use a name I'm familiar with. I didn't reflect about his transition before posting, because I have barely read about it and didn't even remember it until you mentioned it by accusing me of bigotry. His personal live is of no concern to me, what interests me is his legal case and pardon.
   
   You accusing me of bigotry and heavily infracting me like I some Nazi without even bothering to check my side was completely uncalled for and arbitrary. You clearly have a personal problem with me, and now I have one with you. So ask Bootstoots or some other non extremely biased mod to judge my posts in the future.
   
   I have been on CFC before you came and will be long after you leave. Drop your vendetta and try to pretend you're not so biased.
   
   luiz, Today at 2:17 PMEditReport
   Reply
   
   
5. 
   VincourModeratorModerator
   Joined:
   Nov 19, 2006
   Messages:
   9,960
   You're referring to her as a "him" in your reply. You have not demonstrated that you're not trying to offend. You are outright refusing to acknowledge Chelsea as a woman. If you would like to not be seen as bigoted in this regard in the future, I would recommend not misgendering highly visible individuals in the media and, if you are informed that you have misgendered someone, not doubling down and continuing to refer to them by the wrong one.
   
   You are welcome to begin an infraction appeal process by contacting a super moderator such as @ori or @Bootstoots. They will ask you for a log of this PM conversation as well as your reason for the appeal.
   
   Vincour, Today at 2:20 PMReport
   Reply
   
   
6. 
   luizTrendy Revolutionary
   Joined:
   Nov 19, 2001
   Messages:
   18,825
   I don't have to "demonstrate" anything to you. You're not my boss, nor some moral authority. I'm typing from the metro, on my phone, and have no time to overthink what pronouns I'm using. The fact that I used "he", if I did, demonstrates that it's unintentional and when I type fast I just revert to how I'm used to calling Manning. I don't have to demonstrate to you my non-bigotry. My posts speak for themselves. Find a single one where expressed anything but unlimited support for LGBT causes, from gay marriage to sexual reassignment. As I already said, I have no interest on Manning's transition, it's not my business and doesn't affect me I'm the slightest. I have no obligation of reflecting on it.
   
   You can be sure I'm going to appeal, because this is the most outrageous moderating I've ever seen. And I've been here for a loooong time.
   
   luiz, Today at 2:32 PMEditReport
   Reply
   
   
7. 
   VincourModeratorModerator
   Joined:
   Nov 19, 2006
   Messages:
   9,960
   That's fine. Again, @ori or @Bootstoots are the ones to PM for that.

Additional reasoning provided by luiz:

As you may know I'm not really big on reporting posts, "appealing" infractions or anything like that. But Vincour seems to have some vendetta against me, and this time he really crossed the line. As you may have seen on the post about Arpaio, I got a heavy infraction and was accused of transphobia for calling Manning Bradley. Vincour never bothered to warn me or hear me out. It just so happens that I typed that post in 5 seconds, on my phone, and Manning is usually called Bradley on the Brazilian newspapers. I barely remembered his transition as that is not at all interesting to me. I find the case and pardon interesting, but couldn't care less about the gender issue so it's not at all on the top of my mind. If someone told me they were offended or that it was inappropriate I would of course edit my post. As I said, it was just a fast post using the name I'm familiar with - hardly a deliberate attempt to offend. Specially considering that on 16 years on CFC I have nothing but defended LGBT rights. Someone's sexuality is for me a non-issue.

Manning became very famous with the name Bradley, and is still routinely reported with this name in papers in my native language, so if I'm just speaking (or typing) fast without giving any particular thought to the transition question, I would probably call her Bradley or use a male pronoun. Not as a deliberate "political statement", but just as a habitude. I had barely ever thought about her transition, am not interested by it in any way and do not think it has anything to do with the case and the pardon (which was the thread topic, no issues of gender had been raised at all, so I was not thinking about them). I fully respect her right to change gender and name, but I just never really thought about it much so "Chelsea Manning" is not a name on the top of my mind.

Now I don't care about infraction points or anything like that, but I do care about being accused of bigotry in such a venal way, without any reason for it. Would you please review my post and see if the heavy-handed approach was warranted? If you have time to spend, I also invite you to check my posting history on LGBT rights to see if there's even any ambiguity on my unwavering support. I changed positions on many subjects over the years, but not on this one.

Additional reasoning provided by Vincour:

Since luiz elected to double down on misgendering Chelsea Manning after being infracted for doing so, I don't believe that he did it unintentionally or that he gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to comparing against his previous posts. I have not checked his post records, of course, but I don't believe a solid track record in regards to trans issues in the past absolves him of the responsibility in this situation; that responsibility being that he doesn't willfully misgender someone. If he's just trolling then that's an infractable offense just as much as being transphobic is.

If his immediate response had been "oh, my bad" and he fixed the mistake, the infraction would have been reversed and everything would be fine. Instead, the reaction was over the top and luiz proceeded to consciously refer to Chelsea as a man while in the same breath claiming that he has no intention of misgendering her. While that might be true, his actions do not validate that claim.

As an aside, since luiz is claiming I bear a personal vendetta against him, here are links to every infraction I've given him (besides this one).

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/bbc-changing-history.620610/page-15#post-14836409
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/white-identity-politics.620907/page-5#post-14835763
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ies-to-qatar-cut.616533/page-11#post-14796148

I would like to think my infractions towards luiz thus far have been balanced and fair. While this is irrelevant to the appeal, I figure it's worth providing anyways in case attention gets brought to that part of the PM exchange.

There are several things at issue here.

• Is it against the rules in general to refer to a transgender person, who is a public figure not on this forum, as their former name and/or gender pronoun? This is known as "misgendering". Or might this apply only in specific cases (e.g. in a thread on gender identity, where it could be considered trolling)? Or does this never apply, so that what we would consider unacceptable transphobia does not include which name or pronoun a poster uses?
• Was this intentional or not? Luiz claims that he wrote the post very quickly and that Brazilian media still refer to her as Bradley, because the notable events (the leaks and the trial) for which she is known occurred when she was identifying as Bradley and male. Thus, luiz naturally thinks of Manning as Bradley and a man, and has to stop and correct himself. Vincour does not believe this and points to a comment in their PM exchange where luiz refers to Manning as "he". But maybe this is just a slip-up too, because luiz was angry and typing quickly?
• To what extent does intentionality matter in determining if an offense has occurred, in this sort of situation? Might it be allowable to refer to "Bradley Manning" offhand without thinking about it, but disallowable to demonstrate an intent to continue referring to her as "Bradley", especially for events after her change in identity?

I'm going to sit back on this one for the moment and reply with opinions sometime tomorrow, if possible, or possibly a day or two later. It's going to be a very hectic few days for me - looking at places, signing a lease (?), moving, and starting classes in a span of three days. But, in the meanwhile, let's hear from other folks.

 

[Camikaze]

It would be trolling to insist on calling Manning 'Bradley' despite knowing full well that she is now named 'Chelsea', even though Manning is a public figure and not another member of the forum, as to do so would be reasonably likely to provoke a negative reaction, and would serve no purpose conducive to civil and productive discussion. But I don't see this post as clearly travelling far enough down that road to be rule-breaking. Posts are interpreted objectively, so luiz's subjective justification, that he personally is familiar with Manning as Bradley rather than Chelsea, is not directly relevant. What is relevant, however, is that it's entirely conceivable that someone may not know about Manning's change of gender and name, which occurred well after Manning made worldwide news as 'Bradley'. Intention is important, but in the objective sense - does the post read as being intentional misgendering, or does it read as being a slip of the tongue? The former will readily amount to trolling, whereas the latter will not. Yet the former doesn't actually require proof that the poster did in fact intend to provoke a negative reaction; a reckless poster might inadvertently stumble into what objectively appears to be highly offensive wording, and their ignorance doesn't absolve them.

Given that context, an objective interpretation of this post would, I would think, interpret the error as inadvertent. Although luiz's indignant reaction after the fact doesn't necessarily do him any favours in terms of convincing Vincour that he wasn't meaning to be offensive, I don't think that changes how the post should be interpreted. Sure, if you see this post you might think, "this might spark a conversation that heads in a transphobic direction", but I think the time for intervention would be further down the road, when the posts actually do become objectively problematic.

I would vote to overturn this infraction.

Of course, it's clear that Vincour does not have some sort of vendetta against luiz, and luiz's jump to that conclusion is regrettable.

 

[Bootstoots]

Cami captured basically everything I was thinking.

Offhandedly referring to Chelsea Manning as 'Bradley' is fine, as long as the member is not deliberately trolling by repeatedly insisting on doing so despite correction. Further, whether to refer to someone who has changed identities as their former name/gender when times before they publicly changed is a topic of public debate that I don't feel comfortable ruling on. Manning was known as Bradley/he for most of the time (s)he was in the public spotlight: when the leaks were traced to Manning and the subsequent court case. Manning publicly changed identities to Chelsea/she after the trial, and it cannot be reasonably interpreted as trolling or transphobia to offhandedly refer to Manning as Bradley/he since that's what they were known as during their period of public notability. That Brazilian media still refer to this individual as Bradley/he further reinforces the idea that luiz just happens to think of them as Bradley/he, and this remark had nothing to do with any sort of rejection of the idea that transgender people can change their identities.

Luiz's angry responses to the infraction should be ignored, except to give him a mild rebuke against interacting with mods in that fashion. Obviously the claim that Vincour has a vendetta against him can be rejected out of hand. Vincour's moderation style is a little heavier-handed than mine, which is exactly what he was recruited for: I and the other OT mods had mostly lost interest in moderating, and it was time for the pendulum to swing back toward more enforcement. There is no evidence whatsoever that Vincour has treated luiz any differently than any other poster. At the same time, I reject Vincour's claim that luiz was doubling down by referring to Manning as 'he' at one point in their PM exchange. To me, this just reinforces that luiz thinks of Manning as 'he' by default and this is what comes out whenever he either has an angry outburst or is typing a post on his phone in a matter of seconds.

I believe luiz about his consistent support of LGBT rights - his entire posting history has been consistent with being a liberal in the European/Latin American sense, combining social liberalism with a right-wing stance on economics. Still, even if he hadn't been always pro-LGBT and had only "evolved" recently, or even if he thought a conservative position, e.g. that transgender people in general were just confused and there were only two legitimate genders, I'd consider it an acceptable opinion to have according to CFC rules. In order for this to be infractible, he would have to have repeatedly referred to Chelsea Manning as Bradley after her public transition despite public correction, in order to troll people of opposing opinion or to express disapproval of transgender people in general.

Now, if a member knowingly referred to a transgender member of the site in a manner that poster did not approve of, this would be a very different case. And that member would deserve a vacation if they ever tried that in the "Ask A" thread about being transgender; I'd defend that thread vigorously. Public figures and abstract concepts are treated differently from forum members and concrete cases, and that's the way it should be.

I vote to overturn.

 

[Browd]

I find your and Cami's analyses compelling. I also vote to overturn.

 

[ori]

I concur with the above.

 

[leif erikson]

Agree, vote to overturn.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Agreed, voting to overturn.

 

[Bootstoots]

Well, that's a pretty decisive 6-0 already. Should we just go ahead and call it now? Not really sure about the appropriate amount of time to wait for opinions, but there's no way this isn't going to result in an overturn, and I'd rather get it overturned quickly since we all agree on it.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Seems to be a sensible way forward to me.

 

[Bootstoots]

Okay, I just called it as a 6-0 overturn and sent them both PMs about the result and asking whether they consent to PM publication.

 

[Bootstoots]

Both luiz and Vincour have agreed to have their PM discussion published, so nothing is redacted.

This infraction has been overturned in a unanimous decision. Offhandedly referring to a transgender person by their pre-transition name/gender is understandable and not in itself transphobic, especially when they became well-known before publicly announcing they were transitioning and/or when they are known in the poster's native language with their former name and gender identity. There is no evidence that luiz was making a transphobic argument, that he even holds such positions, or that he intended to "dig in" by referring to Manning as "he" in one of his PMs. On the contrary, it seems to back up his argument that he simply thinks of Manning as "Bradley/he" by default unless he remembers to correct himself.

On the other hand, a review of Vincour's infractions has found no "vendetta" against luiz or any other member. He simply has a more infraction-heavy style than some other OT moderators. His style is still well within CFC norms, especially given that he was brought on board in large part to help reestablish order after a period of moderator inactivity in OT.