1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

luiz vs Vincour

Discussion in 'Infraction Review' started by Bootstoots, Aug 27, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Chieftain Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,714
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Luiz is appealing an infraction given by Vincour for this post, which reads

    The subsequent PM exchange can be found either in this picture link or below:
    Additional reasoning provided by luiz:

    Additional reasoning provided by Vincour:

    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.
     
  2. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,810
    Location:
    Sydney
    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.
     
  3. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Chieftain Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,714
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    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.
     
  4. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    10,624
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I find your and Cami's analyses compelling. I also vote to overturn.
     
  5. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,231
    Location:
    Baden-Württemberg, Germany
  6. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    23,361
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
  7. Rob (R8XFT)

    Rob (R8XFT) Ancient Briton Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,484
    Location:
    Leeds (UK)
  8. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Chieftain Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,714
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    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.
     
  9. Rob (R8XFT)

    Rob (R8XFT) Ancient Briton Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,484
    Location:
    Leeds (UK)
    Seems to be a sensible way forward to me.
     
  10. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Chieftain Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,714
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    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.
     
  11. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Chieftain Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,714
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page