He is a biological male who displays the kind of sustained malignant aggression that is vastly more common from males than females. The male pronoun is both correct and usefully informative!
To be clear, I’m not commenting on the more complex questions discussed elsewhere in the thread, such as whether or when it’s appropriate to speculate about someone’s psychology. But I do want to flag that mental illness is often stigmatised and we should probably be especially sensitive and compassionate when discussing it.
As a reminder, the ban affects the user, not the account. During their ban period, the user will not be permitted to rejoin the Forum under another account name. If they return to the Forum, we’ll expect a higher standard of norm-following.
You can reach out to forum-moderation@effectivealtruism.org with any questions. You can appeal the decision here.
I find it notable that this announcement would be at −1 if not for my strong upvote. The suspended user doubled-down on misgendering Torres after being asked to correct it. Are people complaining about the strong norm against intentional misgendering, or is the downvoting reflective of some sort of belief in a “Torres exception” to that norm?
And I can’t believe it needs saying, but a “Torres exception” is not a good idea here. Even completely disregarding Torres’ own feelings there are a lot of people who are not Emile Torres which those lines of attack stigmatise.
Also when, the fundamental complaint about someone is that they repeatedly make uncharitable and probably false claims about people’s true motivations and engage in odd personal attacks on people they might legitimately be unimpressed by, adding a drive-by pop-diagnosis of a mental health condition and a nasty observation on their gender identity doesn’t strengthen that observation, it just sets off the irony meter...
He is a biological male who displays the kind of sustained malignant aggression that is vastly more common from males than females. The male pronoun is both correct and usefully informative!
We’re issuing SuperDuperForecasting a one-month ban for breaking strong Forum norms in several comments (1,2). Specifically:
Intentionally misgendering someone (see more about how a moderator thinks about this here).
Engaging in unnecessary rudeness and offensiveness.
To be clear, I’m not commenting on the more complex questions discussed elsewhere in the thread, such as whether or when it’s appropriate to speculate about someone’s psychology. But I do want to flag that mental illness is often stigmatised and we should probably be especially sensitive and compassionate when discussing it.
As a reminder, the ban affects the user, not the account. During their ban period, the user will not be permitted to rejoin the Forum under another account name. If they return to the Forum, we’ll expect a higher standard of norm-following.
You can reach out to forum-moderation@effectivealtruism.org with any questions. You can appeal the decision here.
I find it notable that this announcement would be at −1 if not for my strong upvote. The suspended user doubled-down on misgendering Torres after being asked to correct it. Are people complaining about the strong norm against intentional misgendering, or is the downvoting reflective of some sort of belief in a “Torres exception” to that norm?
And I can’t believe it needs saying, but a “Torres exception” is not a good idea here. Even completely disregarding Torres’ own feelings there are a lot of people who are not Emile Torres which those lines of attack stigmatise.
Also when, the fundamental complaint about someone is that they repeatedly make uncharitable and probably false claims about people’s true motivations and engage in odd personal attacks on people they might legitimately be unimpressed by, adding a drive-by pop-diagnosis of a mental health condition and a nasty observation on their gender identity doesn’t strengthen that observation, it just sets off the irony meter...