I made some off-hand comments on a post on 196 and didn't realize they'd be taken the wrong way. I made a few more comments to help clarify my idea but caught a blanket ban from blahaj.zone with no warning or message.

https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=588349

I'm mortified :( It's never been my goal to make others feel bad online. I had a quibble with the wording on a meme and clumsily worded my idea of "Our differences shouldn't be minimized because they make us special" was seen as transphobia/TERF rhetoric.

But with no prior warnings or even a message from a mod to 'cool it', I got banned from the entire instance. I love these communities (feel free to look at my 2.5 years of comment/post history) and I would like to be able to continue to participate.

So, is there a formalized method of ban appeal beyond messaging mods? Their instance has like 12, so I don't want to spam them and have it seen as harassment.

top 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Blaze@piefed.zip 32 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I'm as trans-positive as they come, but 'being able to give birth' is actually a meaningful difference.

That's true, but from a categorical standpoint, all trans women are incapable, which, at the very least, is a distiction with non-zero significance.

https://lemmy.world/modlog?userId=588349

Hm, good luck with that ban appeal

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Oof yeah I saw those comments in the wild..

I don’t blame them for dropping the banhammer considering their instance rules and how strictly they enforce them (even if I don’t necessarily agree with some of the enforcement).

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Yeah, blahaj, don't bother. There's an elevated amount of odd positions that are popular there, and don't you dare question them.

[–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You can misgender someone there without intending to and be banned for it. Having a nuanced opinion isn’t going to go over well over there.

My Lemmy account was banned because I use dude as a non-gender term, according to the holy verses then in my attempts to assert I wasn’t applying genitals or identity to anyone I was banned.

And let’s not get started on people abusing their acceptance by deliberately satirizing it … remember the dragon dude?

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Note to self: never comment on blahaj

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus -5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You could just not be shitty and it wouldn't be a problem to post on blahaj at all.

[–] dzsimbo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Was OP being shitty with their comment?

I guess birthing is a hot topic or maybe even a dog whistle in the anti-trans community. Just from OP's deleted comments, I'd say they weren't hating.

[–] mech@feddit.org 3 points 4 days ago

Yes. Blahaj is not a place to debate whether trans women are real women.

[+] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus -6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Was OP being shitty with their comment?

Yes.

Whether it was intentional or not. I mentioned elsewhere that there are cis folks who can't have children. So that comment was shitty to a wider group than just trans folks. Its also pretty common terf stuff.

It also broke the rules for both the instance and the community.

[–] dzsimbo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Thanks for the reply. I see I am going against the grain here, so apologies if this comes through as hard-headed, but I still don't get the violation.

Was the problem that OP was talking in general about the importance of being able to give birth? It doesn't seem to diss trans or sterile people, just mentions that it can be important. Or is OP saying it is important, and that's the problem?

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I was indeed just stating that it can be important (e.g. it's important your doctor knows you're trans), but obviously I was a dumbass for trying to make my point this way.

[–] dzsimbo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

Yeah, I think it's more of a problem of you mansplaining (sorry if you don't identify :)) something that you are not directly going through.

I don't think you're necessarily coming from a bad place, but after reading mech's comment on blahaj, it looks like you tried to toe a line and grossly miscalculated.

If you really want back with this account, you probably want to let it simmer a bit. Take some time thinking about what you can learn from and contribute to the community, and message a mod or two (maybe they have a dl) when you figure it out. I wouldn't bother with trying to explain the situation.

[+] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus -8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It doesn't seem to diss trans or sterile people, just mentions that it can be important. Or is OP saying it is important, and that's the problem?

The comment was made in that it suggests trans women are not women. As well as cis women who can't have children not being women, though unintentionally.

The comment was a specific callout to separate trans women from women in general. Intention is irrelevant, a distinction was made, though despite being about trans women, it was a distinction with no bearing or value on the definition of a woman.

Its a very common talking point for terfs, as well. It is not a new or original attack on trans women, but it is what it boils down to - an attack on trans women.

One that doesnt make sense after a bit of thought is applied either.

[–] dzsimbo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I had to google TERF, but I am familiar with the overall notion (I heard about it from gay circles).

So I think I'm missing context. If OP reacted unkindly to someone facing these issues IRL, banhammer was in place. Just talking about these stuff shouldn't be tabu, because of tolerance.

That being said, if blahaj is a safe zone for the lgbtq+ folk, OP has only themselves to blame. I accidentally commented on a lemmygrad circlejerk thread with 'well, akshually..' and I was torn a new butthole. Even though my argument had merit, it wasn't the right place for it.

Thanks again for the details. Lemmy is wild.

[–] mapto@feddit.bg 7 points 4 days ago

I'd like to point out that in !techtakes@awful.systems they have a rule saying:

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

which they use to wolfpack onto anyone who even remotely questions their tribal consensus, even if that person is coming from sharing a post that is well aligned with them.

Lemmy is wild indeed.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The blahaj server is dedicated to the gender diverse, and a safe space server.

196 is a safe space community, since before Lemmy (r/196 is over 10yrs old)

It is quite specifically a community that contains people who have dealt with these sort of divisive comments before, and a server that has dealt with those sorts of divisive comments before, and is explicitly not permitted on either the community or the server itself. Detailed out rather thoroughly in the sidebar, including noting comments that challenge someone's identity.

So yeah, OP only has themselves to blame, though I'll say the argument that resulted in a ban has zero merit anyway (for reasons previously mentioned).

[–] Jayjader@jlai.lu 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I want to chime in on the subject of community sidebars.

To my understanding, many of the mobile apps people use to interact with the fediverse (and more specifically the threadiverse) haven't figured out a great way to render community sidebar content in a way that a new user knows that it exists. Sidebar content is accessible, but often hidden in a sub menu or a non-obvious interaction. I use Boost, for example; in it you swipe inwards from the right side of the screen to slide the sidebar into view. This isn't surprising to me, a somewhat veteran Reddit user that expects communities to have sidebars and for those sidebars to be on the right side of the screen. However a user that doesn't already know about community sidebars has almost no way of discovering their existence when they use Boost. Mobile apps have limited screen width so they tend to focus on their "principal use" (visiting a community to browse their posts), but if you don't know that communities have sidebars in which they describe themselves and their posting and commenting rules it's very easy to end up in OP's position.

Not to excuse their comments nor question their ban; I agree with the decision by the mods of c/196 to not spend any more effort dealing with such an oblivious user.

I suspect many Lemmy clients are designed for experienced users who already know how to navigate the space(s) and how they function. Yet much of the "how do we introduce new people to the fediverse and onboard them?" discussions I've seen seem to settle on "suggest a generalist instance like LW or .zip, suggest a mobile app like Voyager, and make them start browsing! Newbs are put off by having to do work like read up on an instance". I wonder how much this end up contributing to creating cases like OP's.

Then again, !womensstuff@piefed.blahaj.zone was plagued for over a year by men claiming they were "just responding to posts in their /all feeds". When told about the community's rules and sidebar, the most common response was along the lines of "I can't be bothered to read the community name before commenting on a post in my feed, now I need to navigate to the community and find their sidebar?? This community should find a way to prevent their posts from appearing in /all instead". If these users aren't going to the effort of reading the community name as displayed on posts then there's no guarantee they would read community sidebars even if they were already on-screen, in front of their eyeballs.

Even in the comments on this post I can see the argument that basically boils down to "spaces that don't cater to me should also bear the effort of keeping out of my way" being voiced.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 2 points 4 days ago

Even in the comments on this post I can see the argument that basically boils down to "spaces that don't cater to me should also bear the effort of keeping out of my way" being voiced.

I think that sums it up well, even if the sidebar was presented the very first time someone went into a community, some people wouldn't read it, some people wouldn't care about the rules, etc.

So thats where moderation has to step in like happened here. Every community has rules, its not on the community (or the server) to make sure that visitors are aware of them, its on the people joining in on the conversation. I don't know that there is a better way to present the rules than simply making them available.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io -2 points 4 days ago

Exactly.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Im not trying to argue here, but I am a little confused. The first section seems to be referring to medical care, in which case there would seem to be some distinction? I suspect the answer to my confusion lies in the second part, but im having difficulty parsing it at all. Is it a reaponse to the first part? A continuation? The modlog wont load on my app.

Again, i have no agenda here, im just confused and would like context to avoid potential future issues

[–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago

A lot of people don’t care for the notion that medically there are differences, and so sometimes the distinction is warranted and necessary.

There are two dominant presenting genders, but medically we know that the x and y genes aren’t represented in such a binary fashion. Some people latch onto this knowledge as proof there is no such thing as a “man” or “woman” anyways.

I’m just a parent of a trans child trying my best, and I often times run afoul of the more vocal in their community because I don’t align with their beliefs 100%.

[–] asudox@lemmy.asudox.dev 23 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The one that banned you from !onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone was Ada. So I am assuming the instance wide ban was also performed by Ada. You should contact Ada through her Matrix: @ada:chat.blahaj.zone, your PMs via Lemmy will not go through.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There's a no threadiverse-wide appeals community, but it sounds like it might be useful if it becomes standard. We have !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com but that's more about speaking truth to power, although it's been used before to convince mods to reverse bad moderation actions

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I think any sort of fediverse-wide appeal community, or process, would risk compromising the whole point of the fediverse, ie, decentralization. The fact that admins have the final say on their own instances is part of what keeps the largest instances from controlling smaller ones and keeps the fediverse free of centralized control.

I mean, can you imagine a coalition of the largest instances coming together and telling a small instance "the appeal community agreed this user was banned unfairly, unban them or we'll all defederate you"? Because I can imagine that sequence of events, if an appeal community got any kind of formal backing from the big instances, and that would pretty much end decentralization.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I wasn't talking about anything like this. More about of a way for banned people to have a public place to appeal. For just calling out bad behaviour and putting peer pressure, there's !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

But people already have a public place to appeal. This sub, the sub you linked, pretty much any other instance that has a meta discussion community. But posting here, or there, isn't an actual appeal process - it's just publicly complaining about administrators.

And that was the answer to OP's question: that there's no single fediverse-wide place to appeal a ban, you have to follow instance specific appeal procedures, if they exist, and/or contact the instance's administrators directly.

Which is a good thing, because it helps keep the verse decentralized.

I think, if there was a single location where the fediverse started telling people "if you get banned, post here to appeal", users would expect some sort of formal response to their post, and get upset when people tell them posting there doesn't actually do anything. Which would be bad. And if that location could do anything to encourage administrators to reverse ban decisions, via peer pressure or otherwise, that would also be bad, because it would compromise the independence of instances. That is to say, a fediverse wide appeal community would be at best useless and at worst harmful to the fediverse.

So I think the only appropriate response to "I was banned, what can I do" is "that's between you and the people who banned you".

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

Let's agree to disagree

[–] mapto@feddit.bg 2 points 4 days ago

There's UFoI, but to my understanding that's only helpful in cases of litigations related to federation.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 16 points 4 days ago

Each instance will have its own policies and systems. I can't speak for blahaj.zone.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I’m mortified :( It’s never been my goal to make others feel bad online. I had a quibble with the wording on a meme and clumsily worded my idea of “Our differences shouldn’t be minimized because they make us special” was seen as transphobia/TERF rhetoric.

Try not to take it personally. You waded into a subject which has become a sort of rationality-free zone. Perhaps more so even than Israel-Palestine, or immigration in Europe. On these topics there is almost nobody left who is interested in nuanced debate, it's now only a question of identifying which "side" one's interlocutor is on, and then unloading on them (or downvoting, or deleting, or blocking, or banning) as appropriate. You stumbled into sterile trench warfare, basically.

Soon after I joined Lemmy I was banned from a (somewhat serious) community for making the same mistake you made. I learned my lesson. With certain topics, genuine debate - open-minded, good faith discussion - is just not possible. I see it as a failure of Lemmy, yes, but mainly of the whole medium of text-based social media. It's certainly not your fault.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

@Zoomboingding@lemmy.world, @JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world is right. You stumbled onto an extremely hot topic on the fediverse. Blahaj is extremely sensitive to it, that's just how the community is.

If they dont want your identity (the current account you are using), just create a new one and use that one to learn their ways and become a good member of their community.

However, and I'm saying this out of completeness not because I actually believe this is what you want, if you just want to debate their points and break their rules knowingly, please don't. Just accept that they have different preferences than you do. Life is too short to willingly spend time where you aren't wanted.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 4 days ago

I consider myself reasonable enough that im pretty ok with dropping a place that bans me. Its like I don't expect to be thrown out of bars or restaurants I use because I don't like go crazy yelling at staff or punching people.

[–] ragingHungryPanda@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 2 points 4 days ago

it looks like you'll need to message the mods

[+] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub -7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

This is a disadvantage of the Fediverse: the owner of the instance dictates the rules, and the moderators are as prone to power trips as they are on Reddit.

Be glad you were banned from blahaj, it’s in the top instances of intolerance to group think defiance. If you manage to get unbanned, you’ll be always at risk of another impulsive ban.

Real life is hard enough to add gratuitous drama to it.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This is literally the advantage of the Fediverse. Users of an instance are capable of moving around elsewhere and still using most of the system.

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 0 points 4 days ago

Let’s say it’s a double-edged sword. It brings freedom, but encourages insulation and intolerance.

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'd really like to appeal it because I like several of the communities there. I also recognize that I was on a meme sub and people aren't there to defend their identity with a stranger - there's a time and a place. It was a post about unity and inclusion, and my gripe about an implication of the message wasn't worth ruffling feathers.

But thank you for the comment, the instance didn't seem to mention anything about messaging mods or appeals, and I wasn't sure if there was some fediverse-wide method.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 20 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

A bit about blahaj:

this is a server that is very protective of our minority members and bigotry of any variety will be squashed with great prejudice.

Embracing inclusion and acceptance means listening when people tell you who they are and what their needs are. It means not telling people that you know their experiences better than they do. It means not gatekeeping experiences of identities of others. It means no bigotry such as racism, sexism, anti LGBT commentary, ableism etc. It means doing your best to ensure that you don’t over-talk the voices of folk who don’t share your privileges.

Now as far as this:

I also recognize that I was on a meme sub and people aren't there to defend their identity with a stranger - there's a time and a place

I would point out two things.

One, that place will never be blahaj.

Two, many will sit in stark disagreement with what you've said - myself included - because no one should ever have to defend their identity from a stranger. Its their identity, not yours, you putting things to a place of their defense means you are already in a position of attacking their identity. You are on the offensive.

Thats never going to fly on blahaj, and I would really recommend you reflect on the meaning behind what you said before even considering messaging ada, or its just going to be a complete waste of time.

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Thank you for this comment. I do hope that the instance continues to be an inclusive place for trans folks and their allies. I'd like to clarify that I didn't intend to make anyone feel they needed to defend their identity; the fact that my message was poorly worded was the cause of that.
Cards on the table, I'm someone many would consider an egg. I'm a cis male, but I've always felt more comfortable talking with women, and have always felt that I wished I'd been born female (I've never had dysphoria though). After a lot of discussions with the trans community, I came to see that I'm ultimately comfortable with who I am.
So when I make statements to the tune of "It's important to some people that their trans identity is recognized", it comes from the heart. Again, I recognize that I initially worded that in probably the worst way, and I apologize sincerely to anyone I offended.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Just to mention, your comments (that got you banned) were also deeply flawed logically.

Cis-gendered men and women can be unable to have children. Your statement says that they are not men and are not women by the (incredibly flawed) definition you provided.

I'd also note that the wording of your message was irrelevant, the meaning behind it was straight out of terftown, whether you recognized that then or now, it is what it is.

What you consider yourself and what you've considered in the past is honestly irrelevant to me, and I hope you realize that my comments are not made in anger or frustration, but just as an explanation and a hope that you can do better going forward.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago

It's worth noting that there are (shitty) people in the world who consider cis people who are unable to, or merely choose not to, have children as lesser or not Real men/women. It's a distinction that has relevance in some limited ways, but has no logical bearing on your identity.

[–] unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Honestly, I've read through his comments, and I'm surprised at how much bad faith is being assumed here.

He never actually defined anything. He essentially said that trans women cannot get pregnant and trans men cannot impregnate someone - at least not naturally (although I am curious to see what science will come up with in the next couple of decades). That's just a fact, unless you have some evidence otherwise.

Yes, of course there are cis people that can't have kids, he never said anything to the opposite effect. Just because there are people with eyes who can't see doesn't mean that the statement "people without eyes can't see" is false.

And OK, people from "terftown" apparently say similar things - honestly, I don't hang out there specifically because I don't like the transphobia, how the hell should I or anyone else who doesn't hang out there know? Can we please just judge people by what they say, and not by what other people say? Because this is turning into a "Hitler also drank water" argument.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Can we please just judge people by what they say

That is precisely what I've done. Just because youre unfamiliar with the rhetoric doesnt mean trans folks aren't, since they've seen these same lines of comments again and again and again.... And again, and again, and again.

For you to say I'm applying bad faith here just tells me you aren't actually reading my comments.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You should judge people by what they say without an assumption of 'what they really mean' unless there is more context from them, because they might be oblivious of some other context as well.

Not everyone can keep up with all the dumb shit that transphobes use to imply trans women are not women.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You realize they kept expanding on the comment, right? And doubling down on it?

Well intentioned or not isnt really relevant. I'm not calling them a bad person, I pointed out the problem with what they said, and that the wording wasn't relevant.

When it comes to the ban though, it wouldn't matter anyway. They were in violation of both site-wide and community rules.

There is no other context that matters here. They could be trans and it still wouldn't matter. The comment created an arbitrary (and altogether meaningless) distinction on how to define women, specifically separating trans women from women.

A rule violation on both counts.

So what exactly is your point here?

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So what exactly is your point here?

It looked like you weren't getting the point of what they were saying and was offering another way of saying it. Since your reply is clear that you disagree that context matters, you got the point but disagree.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 0 points 4 days ago

Slight correction, I said no other context matters.