-
Follow our Instagram!
-
Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Social LGBTQIA+
- Thread starter dhelmise
- Start date
Given the number of times crux has been unfairly permabanned because of moderator beef with his insufferable personality (all cases obviously were then overturned), you’re going to have to actually be more specific then just vagueposting about more sinister unstated reasons.
Well I guess you don’t *have* to. I guess it’s within the realm of possibility that you just play with 0 transparency making it so that you never have to justify a moderation move. Honestly that’s the headier play.
Well I guess you don’t *have* to. I guess it’s within the realm of possibility that you just play with 0 transparency making it so that you never have to justify a moderation move. Honestly that’s the headier play.
I actually did go into specifics for what collectively got him permabanned (again) in another post but it got deleted because that is not relevant to this thread’s topic, and it’s unfair to air out someone else’s dirty laundry. Someone who was permabanned in 2014 for constantly starting drama only to return in 2020 to the same exact thing should not shock a soul.
He isn’t a victim of moderator beef. He’s just a bad user.
you can keep on repeating this all you want, it is very unsettling that crux was permabanned almost immediately after a post calling out his "harmful beliefs" (or whatever you want to call them) garnered far more support than is usual for this thread. w/ that being said, I also happen to know half of the reasons he was banned for were greatly overstated (for instance i was there for almost all the "harassement towards stours mod" and even labelling it as such is ridiculous/ borderline homophobic if you want me to overstate harm myself :p). no matter how annoying crux's tone/antics may be, I know and have witnessed first hand (and personally benefited from) his drive to help other lgbt people better understand sexuality/gender. the past few exchanges regarding ace identities kept delivering some of the most blatantly bad faith and dishonest interpretations of his posts. i understand that some of these discussions may be difficult to handle but it doesn't mean they arent important and cant be beneficial for the community. as things stand, there's no way to interpret the events that took place yesterday as anything other than an attempt to shut someone up for challenging others views on important issues for the lgbt community.
Last edited:
Sorry, where is the thread where we can talk about this then? Or again, is the modus operandi to just not be transparent ever? Fucking weird how a guy is a problem user for *squints again checking notes* antagonizing the moderator team for stricter standards and better moderation.
Weird how there might be something worth talking about to a sudden unprompted banning of a user like that.
Maybe you right, maybe we shouldn't challenge the mod team and should just let pedophiles be a part of the admin team like we used to.
I believe you are reading far more hostility into Crux's posts than is actually present. First of all, the argument that ace/aro persons shouldn't be included within the LGBT community only exists for those ace/aro persons who still identify as heteroromantic/heterosexual respectively. This does not mean that these people cannot struggle with their sexuality, and in fact I would not at all be surprised that they struggle with this more than the average person since feeling such a disconnect from sexuality in a society that is highly sexualized is of course likely to cause some mental anguish. However, struggling with one's own sexual identity or deviating from "the norm" does not necessarily grant one access to the LGBT community. This is obvious in other cases. We do not grant access to the LGBT community to, say, heterosexual persons who have faced sexual trauma in the past and as a result often feel a great deal of confusion and anguish over the sexual feelings they experience. Some heterosexual persons identify as furries and experience attraction to anthropomorphized animals, something that from what I've seen online seems to both greatly impact how they think about themselves and how others think of them. Of course this does not mean these people do not deserve sympathy or care or spaces in which they can talk to people with similar experiences and self-understandings, but I simply mean that experiencing difficulties with sexuality or having a sexual self-understanding that is divergent from the norm is not enough to "be LGBT". Why is this the case? Because we understand the LGBT community to be a political community, not an affinity group. The goal of LGBT politics is not to validate everyone's identity and provide a space in which similar-minded people can pal around, but to tear down oppressive laws, norms, and political institutions that keep LGBT people subjugated.
You mention that "this feels like gatekeeping" and you are correct, this is gatekeeping. But gatekeeping is done for a reason. In order for the LGBT community to maintain some coherence as a political movement - already difficult enough given that it has always been an awkward coalition - there have to be boundaries that determine who counts as part of the community and who doesn't. This is not to say that any group that is not already in has no chance of getting in, but any further addition to the community should at least be properly justified. The current impulse among liberals is to simply assume that by default, just about any sexually marginal (or "queer") group can be part of the community if they so desire. This eventually begins to dilute the original reason for the LGBT community's existence, that is to say, a shared social oppression on the basis of norms regarding gender and sexuality. If asexual people can convincingly make the case that by virtue of their asexuality (rather than because of other factors) they are excluded from sharing in cisheterosexual privilege and face oppression on the basis of their sexuality, it might be completely justified to include them. However, it appears to me that their inclusion has already begun to be normalized without there ever being serious discourse on the grounds for their inclusion, and anytime one begins to start a discussion it is met with accusations of hostility and "acephobia" - without establishing what acephobia entails, why it is capital O Oppression, why it is similar to homophobia or transphobia.
Now, I understand that it may be uncomfortable for people (especially those who identify as ace/aro) to hear someone like Crux say, in his classic antagonizing tone, that asexuals are not inherently LGBT, and it may as a result be difficult to assume good faith and to engage with his arguments. However, this is in fact an important discussion that is worth having and one that has not been properly "decided" yet in the way that, say, the discussion regarding trans people's inclusion has been. Nobody should feel obliged to participate if they don't want to, but please don't assume that any challenge to inclusion is by necessity bigotry or close-mindedness. This goes for the people who determined that Crux apparently deserved a ban for trying to initiate a discussion on the subject more than anyone else.
I could reply to more parts of Hogg's posts or other people's posts in this thread but for the moment I think I have said what I wanted to say. I would lastly just like to point out that everyone should read this post Crux made back in March if they are remotely interested in LGBT politics and some of the issues discussed on the last couple of pages because it is frankly pretty excellent and you should really read this if you want to engage in a good faith discussion on LGBT politics.
I doubt you'll believe me, but this was just a matter of poor timing.
If that's how you feel, then okay. I'm an admin in the PokePride Discord, as you're probably aware since you are also in the discord, and Rosa is as well--she is also a 1v1 mod, so she can speak on that regard. Also, to quote the post you're referring:
It seems you misinterpreted my post? I gave the actual reason he was banned.Kris said:
Again, I never said this was untrue, and I don't think anyone was denying that he wants to help educate people and help them discover their identities.
I don't think responding defensively to being told your queer identity is invalid is "bad faith".
I agree; there's a multitude of controversial topics for the community as a whole to discuss, and I think Crux had good intention in attempting to bring them up. However, It's extremely uncomfortable for a user to come out as asexual (the validity of which I frankly don't care to discuss) and then have Crux immediately follow up with telling them they are not valid.
Still wrong, but like I said in my (now deleted) post explaining in-depth why Crux was banned, it's clear where you stand on this and I doubt I will be able to convince you, so just have fun continuing to believe this.
PM Senior Staff or something? He is a problem user for other things; antagonizing and criticizing the mod team for being too lax was not a reason for why he was banned at all and if it were, I would've held more issue with his ban as well, seeing as I--in this very thread--called out the cong mods for neglecting this thread.
I mean if you find his ban unprompted, then more power to you. Crux was permabanned for being nothing short of a pain in the ass for a long time, anyone without tunnel vision could've seen this coming from a mile away.
Very unsure where I said or implied this and I take issue with your implication that I'm okay with pedophilia. Grow up.
You did not give the actual reason he was banned; I would know as a SmogTours mod. The actual reason he was banned was for instigating 'drama'(bringing up controversial topics mainly), it had nothing to do with his joke quizzes or anything with the moderation team. Whether you want to impose judgment on him for the actual reason is up to you, but your post is blatantly wrong about that.
I got my reason from a member of the TD team.
PMing senior stuff is not an open forum for discussion lmao. There's no accountability hiding away discussions like these in private messages.
And yeah. Crux is a pain in the ass. Is that actually a bannable offense? If it is, why the fuck haven't countless other problem causing users been banned earlier all over this forum? Why is Crux suddenly being banned under the offense of being a douchebag asshat.
And the implication isn't that you're okay with pedophilia, it's that the moderation team of this website has a real fucking bad reputation historically and it's not a good look for you to try and paint yourself with a holier than thou brush in that context. You haven't earned an ounce of trust.
Is this a backpeddle, a shift of blame or what? What's going on here? What fucking kind of moderator response is this?
And yeah. Crux is a pain in the ass. Is that actually a bannable offense? If it is, why the fuck haven't countless other problem causing users been banned earlier all over this forum? Why is Crux suddenly being banned under the offense of being a douchebag asshat.
And the implication isn't that you're okay with pedophilia, it's that the moderation team of this website has a real fucking bad reputation historically and it's not a good look for you to try and paint yourself with a holier than thou brush in that context. You haven't earned an ounce of trust.
Is this a backpeddle, a shift of blame or what? What's going on here? What fucking kind of moderator response is this?
Do you literally need me to post a detailed log exchange from the moderation channel I can currently access as for why he was banned? He was banned for instigating, it had nothing to do with the mod team, of which I was and currently am a part of, and participated in the discussion of his ban.
Last edited:
update part 2?
now I've never been the type of person to enjoy PDA in general (at all, literally)
heck, when I was still actively dating only girls, I wouldn't even like holdings hands - but I feel like this had a lot to do with me being uncomfortable with my own sexuality and so it just turned into anxiety and feeling like everyone was looking at me
but as of recently my boyfriend and I celebrated our one year and although everything is closed because pandemic and such, I've felt so much more comfortable being affectionate in public which I feel like is such a big step for me? idk maybe I'm over-exaggerating but we love breaking down my anxiety around PDA/internalized homophobia!!
now I've never been the type of person to enjoy PDA in general (at all, literally)
heck, when I was still actively dating only girls, I wouldn't even like holdings hands - but I feel like this had a lot to do with me being uncomfortable with my own sexuality and so it just turned into anxiety and feeling like everyone was looking at me
but as of recently my boyfriend and I celebrated our one year and although everything is closed because pandemic and such, I've felt so much more comfortable being affectionate in public which I feel like is such a big step for me? idk maybe I'm over-exaggerating but we love breaking down my anxiety around PDA/internalized homophobia!!
Last edited:
Honest suggestion: make an LGBTQ+ Safe space thread (this one) and a seperate LGBT Politics thread.
People who want general advice and support or just to be told they look pretty can be, and those who want a full discussion about the political nuances can. I can't be the only one who wants to just come here and talk about people's experiences without getting a full thesis on why they're not important, actually.
On a similar note, I understand that our identity has become inherently political, but that doesn't mean that every moment of our being, every single discussion we have, every fibre in our bodies, needs to be politicised (is that a word?). I don't want to wake up, have breakfast, fight corrupt systems and combat homophobic regimes, go to bed. I want to be able to talk to people or rant about my experiences or listen to others rant about theirs without someone making a fucking shakesperian play or greek epic poem describing in precise detail why everything I do and say and think is wrong.
To do what I just said I actually wanted to do: does anyone have any advice on getting 'womens' clothes for someone who still looks (at least recognisably, I don't have a big beard or anything) male? What clothes do you think could work? ANy general tips on getting gender neutral fashion?
People who want general advice and support or just to be told they look pretty can be, and those who want a full discussion about the political nuances can. I can't be the only one who wants to just come here and talk about people's experiences without getting a full thesis on why they're not important, actually.
On a similar note, I understand that our identity has become inherently political, but that doesn't mean that every moment of our being, every single discussion we have, every fibre in our bodies, needs to be politicised (is that a word?). I don't want to wake up, have breakfast, fight corrupt systems and combat homophobic regimes, go to bed. I want to be able to talk to people or rant about my experiences or listen to others rant about theirs without someone making a fucking shakesperian play or greek epic poem describing in precise detail why everything I do and say and think is wrong.
To do what I just said I actually wanted to do: does anyone have any advice on getting 'womens' clothes for someone who still looks (at least recognisably, I don't have a big beard or anything) male? What clothes do you think could work? ANy general tips on getting gender neutral fashion?
Gender neutral fashion for me includes oversized hoodies, jeans, any shoes that have both women’s and men’s pairs of the same shoe (nike for example), some sweatpants (really just depends on the sweatpants), t shirts that aren’t overly “masculine” or “feminine”, Some Sweaters (again it really depends on the sweater), any jackets & coats that have the same jacket/coat in both men’s & women’s sizes, scarves, gloves, beanies, etc.
Last edited:
honest response: no.
LGBT politics should not be separated from other LGBT topics. it is important for us to be cognizant of how politics affects us since LGBT existence is inherently political.
While I think this is well-intentioned, folks should not have to defend themselves and their identity in a safe-space. I agree that it is important to be cognizant, but as Fresher Than You stated, " that doesn't mean that every moment of our being, every single discussion we have, every fiber in our bodies, needs to be politicized". It gets tiring to have to constantly defend who you are and answers questions/defend yourself. Safe spaces are supposed to be just that, a safe space free from the exhausting battle that is living everyday as an LGBTQ+ individual.
edit: forgot to add, that I agree that educating others and giving our opinions on certain issues is certainly helpful, however having to be in the educator seat 24/7 is exhausting and not having a space to go to to be free from that (at least for awhile) can attribute to his exhaustion.
Last edited:
this does not conflict with what i said whatsoever. you can still have a queer “safe space” without detaching it from politics.
Politics are inherently confrontational, and individuals tend to argue over differing ideals - at least from my lived experiences. Inserting politics in a safe space brings room for dialogue that can force groups apart rather than coming together and separate a community. If you truly want a safe space, it's better to separate politics from that space and open dialogue through a separate avenue.
Let me be clear, I agree that LGBTQ+ issues are extremely important to have dialogue about - however I just feel like a "safe space" is not necessarily the place for these discussions.
edit: Last edit (yikes), I do agree that the state of the thread right now is not a safe space - I'm just commenting on the idea of using it as one and separating political discussions.
Last edited:
I had a response but I don't really think it made sense so I'll just have this instead.
I want a safe space. I was hoping that this thread was it, and specfically because of drama and debating it wasn't. Politics are integral to LGBT, I know this, I just don't want to have to wade through posts to get to stuff that's relevant to me.
I want a safe space. I was hoping that this thread was it, and specfically because of drama and debating it wasn't. Politics are integral to LGBT, I know this, I just don't want to have to wade through posts to get to stuff that's relevant to me.
Last edited:
queer existence is and of itself a political statement due to its antithesis to an oppressive heteronormative status quo. no one is 'inserting' politics in LGBT spaces; they are inherently political spaces. there is no such thing as an 'apolitical' LGBT existence, and this rhetorical implication that it is even possible, let alone good or desirable, is misguided at best and actively harmful at worst.
Last edited:
I think there is a misunderstanding. I wanted a seperate thread for the purposes of staying on certain topics, readability not having go scroll through posts. I have no political bias or reasoning in suggesting what I did. I just wanted a seperate thread so I didn't have to scroll through arguments to get to clothing suggestions. That's literally it.
Not really sure what you mean here? That is how threads work? If you only want to read clothing suggestions or whatever you want to focus on, then you can do that by ignoring the posts you don't want to read, it's really that simple.
having a separate thread hardly helps with this functionally. you can easily ignore the posts you don't want to engage with. there is no readability issue on a thread that gets moderate traffic at best.
this is the issue though. it does not matter if politics are confrontational: trying to separate queer existence from politics develops complacency and ignorance in a group of politically vulnerable people. obviously we don't want outright conflict in these threads, and such posts are moderated out. political discussion and interrogation of peoples' values only serves to benefit the community, especially given so many of the people here are younger.
a little anecdote: as a teen, i mostly frequented online queer spaces that were what you two are describing as "safe spaces." anything that was remotely confrontational was moderated out, and no topics that had any potential to trigger someone could be brought up. this included even the most simple political discussions. i understand the desire to escape these things, especially as queer people, but it is possible to find a balance, and on an online forum, it's MUCH easier to ignore the politics than in a real time chat.
being in these types of spaces is not beneficial, especially for younger queer people coming into their identities. again, speaking personally, it really serves to detach us from our queer identities and the impacts these identities have on our existence... aka how we operate in a political system. i know for me personally, i went through a phase where i became so detached from the politics around my queerness that i became accepting of people who "just had different opinions" when those opinions were literally about whether or not queer people are human. this is the type of complacency liberalism breeds: this idea that you need to accept opposing viewpoints as legitimate even when they are absurd. by shielding queer people from the politics that surround our identities, we ensure they are ill-equipped to handle those people that will deny their humanity, which surely will happen.
if you personally do not want to see politics, go ahead and ignore the posts in this thread. it is not hard. if you don't want to interact with the more political people in this community, don't add them to your discord chats. but to say that the confrontational nature of politics is inherently bad is foolish when the alternative is much worse.
Last edited:
Howdy y'all! I'm a trans lesbian who just made an account here, and I just wanted to stop by and say hi to my fellow LGBTs! :D