Moderation of the word "Trap" in context of transgender people

Ηuawei·Nov 22, 2018·19 votes·9,916 views

I had a post moderated for just saying "Neeko is a trap" because it is a generally offensive term for trans people and while i accept that keep reading.

It is a term used by a lot of people in various social media, youtube comments, anime fans, it's used by people to describe Sneaky and Boxbox etc.

How do all these medias allow the term but League boards are oversensitive?

I, myself am crossdressing like Sneaky and BoxBox do and i find it offensive that the word trap is moderated because it means what i'm doing is offensive, offensive enough to be moderated.

So, according to Ulanopo am i really an offensive human being for using the word "trap" to describe myself? Am i not allowed the freedom to do so if i desire?

Isn't self-determination a thing? I have to stick to some superficial narrative for myself enforced by others?

85 Comments

ModUlanopoNov 22, 201812 votes

So, according to Ulanopo am i really an offensive human being for using the word "trap" to describe myself? Am i not allowed the freedom to do so if i desire?

Outside of the boards, nope, use whatever term makes you happy. I'm 100% for you living your best life regardless of what form that takes (with the standard caveat that hurting other people isn't cool). People like to joke about things like "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter", but the truth is we genuinely don't judge.

On the boards, that's a different question entirely. Our mandate is to help create a community that is as tolerant and welcoming as possible, which can be challenging to balance with free expression. We already remove certain racial and homophobic terms some people routinely use in their everyday life. The distinction is that those terms have a different cultural acceptance in those environments.

If you want to sit around with your friends, saying "Neeko is a trap", you go right ahead. Just keep in mind you accepted that it's a generally offensive term. That's how we base our moderation - the generally accepted usage, for better or worse.

Du Ma MiNov 22, 201811 votes

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't understand the offensive aspect of the use of the word "trap", when referring to someone who is cross-dressing.

Let's start with the fact that cross-dressing isn't an offensive hobby, nor is inappropriate, and should not be treated as such - not that anybody really is at this point. Using the word trap, at least in my personal experience, has always been about attraction versus sexual orientation. I am a straight male, so when I saw Sneaky dressed up and went "damn who's that", it was a massive shock to find out that it was a man whom I'd watched play league for years and I had not recognized him. That, to me, felt like a proper use of the term.

If someone has the intention to look like the opposite sex, and when a straight person of their own sex finds them attractive, why would this term be considered offensive?

ModUlanopoNov 22, 201810 votes

If someone has the intention to look like the opposite sex, and when a straight person of their own sex finds them attractive, why would this term be considered offensive?

The common connotation is that someone who "misrepresents" their gender is being deceitful, trying to trick someone into a relationship or encounter that isn't what they expected.

ShadowGlaive213Nov 23, 20181 votes

I don't know if moderation on the boards and in client are the same, but could you tell me why "queer" is censored by the game filter?

Jhins GirlfriendNov 23, 20183 votes

{quoted}

I don't know if moderation on the boards and in client are the same, but could you tell me why "queer" is censored by the game filter?

I'm not a mod but it is, historically, used as a slur.

ShadowGlaive213Nov 23, 20182 votes

Language is constantly evolving though and putting it into current context it comes across as censoring a part of the LGBTQ community.

Jhins GirlfriendNov 23, 20182 votes

{quoted}

Language is constantly evolving though and putting it into current context it comes across as censoring a part of the LGBTQ community.

Just because some people reclaim it doesn't mean everyone is comfortable with it. Some black people reclaim the n-word but it doesn't mean it's not a slur anymore

ShadowGlaive213Nov 23, 20181 votes

I'm aware, but Ulanopo implied that commonality was a factor in what is censored and what isn't. It's not very common currently to use queer as a slur. It is, however, commonly used to enable discussion of a minority group, whereas the n-word is not.

Stars ShaperNov 23, 20183 votes

Can "cis" be moderated too then? The sentence "cis white male" has been the derogatory trend that has been going on in the last few years and it's starting to feel that being a straight white male is a sort of crime nowdays, it honestly feels terrible to be attacked because of that.

Edit: This is not a joke, I'm serious about it and I'm writing this edit because I'm sure a lot would think that this is just sarcasm of some sort.

Du Ma MiNov 24, 20181 votes

{quoted}

The common connotation is that someone who "misrepresents" their gender is being deceitful, trying to trick someone into a relationship or encounter that isn't what they expected.

Definitely a fair point about connotation. On the other hand, I've also never noticed anyone complain about the use of this word - even having friends who crossdress themselves, sometimes we have joked about it, but it's always been seen in more of a humourous light than a negative one. This has just been my personal experience, and thus leads me to my main question:

how do moderators of the boards come to the conclusion that some words are offensive, regardless of intent? Just curious :)

ModUlanopoNov 24, 20183 votes

how do moderators of the boards come to the conclusion that some words are offensive, regardless of intent? Just curious :)

Most of the time, it's just common knowledge. We still get people thinking that they were "just kidding" using those slurs. As a team, we have fairly extensive institutional knowledge of problematic terms, both new and old. Moderating requires reading, after all, so we tend to actively curate our vocabularies.

With terms like "trap", it's the product of discussion, though it's important to remember that this is more of a discretionary area until we achieve consensus. The hard ban on calls for Rioters to be fired took months to gel into active policy, for example. In the meantime, we tend to assign light punishments - or no punishment at all, as in this case.

"Regardless of intent" is also tricky. If someone used the term in reference to a champion's mechanics, we wouldn't moderate that, even if the simple quote was "X is a trap" It would be better for people to be more precise - "X is a noob trap".

Finally, with regard to what triggers a shift in our perspective on a word or phrase, it's mostly when we start to notice it being used in an insulting or hurtful way. We also respond to what gets reported.

Hope that helps!

Du Ma MiNov 24, 20181 votes

I appreciate the response!

SuffocateMeDaddyNov 22, 20183 votes

Free expression doesnt exist on this cest pool. Even the idea of you giving advice that goes like "You can do what ever you like, however not on boards" and then fucking continue with "We are trying to create welcoming society". You are shutting down your own fucking point in single sentence. NOTHING SHOULD BE MODERATED. Even the idea of someone getting banned or censored simply because he holds opinions most people do not share is literal definition of oppression of freedom of speech and opinions. If someone is Nazi, so long he doesnt harm anyone, let him be nazi. And only that, LET PEOPLE JUDGE HIM THEMSELVES. Let them call him stupid retard that holds inhumane values. BECAUSE THEY ARE RIGHT.

Censoring people will achieve nothing but actual department of people that do not feel welcome in the community. Letting community sort itself is probably the best way to avoid trolls. But hey, why let people think what they think.

ModUlanopoNov 22, 201810 votes

NOTHING SHOULD BE MODERATED.

That's not really viable as an option.

SuffocateMeDaddyNov 22, 20181 votes

Why is it not viable? Perhaps you are implying that the game itself attracts immoral types. Perhaps I would fucking reconsider other things about the whole community and not just moderation. Or perhaps you are afraid that community is composed of little kids that cant think for themselves. If that is so, perhaps the age rating should go up.

ModUlanopoNov 22, 20186 votes

No, I'm straight up saying that "no moderation" for a company's official discussion boards is not a viable idea. IMDb took down their discussion areas. So did Yahoo news. They're not the only ones.

Also, lots of companies are going to third-party discussion sections that bridge across sites. Those "sidebars" are moderated, as well. Huffington Post, for example, uses Spot.IM.

The truth of the matter is that people say stupid, hurtful things on the internet all the time and that isn't a function of age.

SuffocateMeDaddyNov 22, 20182 votes

Censorship is the easiest way to kill your community. Stop embracing PC culture, internet trolls will always exist, deal with it.

ModiNov 22, 20183 votes

[{quoted}](name=Pin me daddy,realm=EUNE,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=ZrhhEeZQ,comment-id=000400010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-22T18:20:02.249+0000)

Censorship is the easiest way to kill your community. Stop embracing PC culture, internet trolls will always exist, deal with it.

Prosecuting murders is the easiest way to kill a society. Stop embracing senseless attachment to other humans. Killers will always exist, deal with it.

Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? Just because they exist and would be difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate, does not mean that we should stop trying altogether.

lil kodaNov 23, 20182 votes

saying something mean on the internet and ending someones life are kind of different. fucking holy shit you people

StriginaNov 23, 20182 votes

It's not about comparing murder to saying hurtful things. It's about comparing the principle behind to show him how silly the used argument is.

SuffocateMeDaddyNov 23, 20181 votes

Do you realize that censorship is direct violation of freedom of speech? Do you realize that words CANNOT KILL YOU? Is PC culture so deep in your god damn mind already that you cant even see the essence of the issue here? But oh well, you can wait until PC culture bites even you into ass. It started with racial slurs and homophobia, now you cant even say shit if you dont want to be censored. Just you wait, do nothing, keep on doing what they want, dont think.

ModiNov 23, 20183 votes

[{quoted}](name=Pin me daddy,realm=EUNE,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=ZrhhEeZQ,comment-id=00040001000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-11-23T09:14:47.991+0000)

Do you realize that censorship is direct violation of freedom of speech? Do you realize that words CANNOT KILL YOU? Is PC culture so deep in your god damn mind already that you cant even see the essence of the issue here? But oh well, you can wait until PC culture bites even you into ass. It started with racial slurs and homophobia, now you cant even say shit if you dont want to be censored. Just you wait, do nothing, keep on doing what they want, dont think.

Interesting, you at once chastise my use of an inflated analogy, but you use your own. You say that something as simple as punishing the use of specific words, that are most often used in an insulting and hateful manner, leads to doom and gloom.

You are using the logical fallacy [slippery slope] (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope).

I would normally give you an introduction to the first amendment of the US Constitution. Seeing that you are from Europe, I invite you to provide you equivalent text from your country of residence. I am not an expert in European governments or laws, so I'll wait.

Automated RivenNov 22, 20182 votes

Not to pick fights here. But your using sources whose entire point is to control the narrative rather then reporting new, in addition to convey that they are objectively covering news. (I'm not gonna argue about it, but I have very good reasons to believe it to be the case) they literally have to censer the fuck out of everything because it interferes with the narrative. They aren't really shinning examples of why something should or should not be moderated.

I don't disagree with your point so much, and I support your guys right to do what you want.

ModPeriscopeNov 22, 20181 votes

Does ESPN make for a good example? They had to remove comments from their articles recently, but I think more so for spam-related reasons

Automated RivenNov 22, 20181 votes

I wouldn't know about ESPN, sorry. Tbh I think you guys do a pretty good job on these board. Barring a few specific things that don't relate to the subject at hand. But I can completely understand wanting to moderate offensive speach to weed out the worst offenders to avoid driving people away. I think it's a valid effort at the very least.

ModUlanopoNov 22, 20183 votes

They aren't really shinning examples of why something should or should not be moderated.

I would argue that any company has to have moderation for their boards, for a variety of reasons. I simply used those as examples of ways in which companies respond to internet trolls.

I think we, as volunteer moderators, are pretty open about our agenda, such as it is. We want as many people as possible to be able to use the boards without feeling like they have to tolerate harassment or abuse. Far too many experience that sort of garbage in their "real life". It doesn't have to be a thing here.

Automated RivenNov 22, 20181 votes

Tbh I think you guys do pretty well for the most part. I was just pointing out that the sources you used tend to over moderate and cherry pick, which isn't a good model to follow. But tbh, from my experience and what I have seen others say, I think most of your moderation choices are good on these boards.

LauchmelderNov 22, 20182 votes

Moderation as a whole isn't bad but sometimes you're (the mods as a whole) overshooting waaay too much on certain topics. Light moderation is always better than heavy moderation.

ModUlanopoNov 22, 20183 votes

"Light moderation" is an opinion, one that most often devolves into "it's not a problem for me, so it's not really a problem". The real solution would be for the average poster to exhibit empathy and respect.

IcyPepperNov 22, 20182 votes

Generally I agree with the moderation, but I think censoring "trap" is going a little too far. Calling a transgender person a "trap" is certainly offensive, but a pretty dude crossdressing is a different can of worms. It's similar to drag queens, who are neither queens or seen as a drag (pun), but the main difference with traps is that they're not mainstream LGBT+ generally.

It's kind of an unfair double-standard and I don't think we should be that strict so long as people are fun and respectful. People in drag are able to do it, and calling oneself a trap carries a different connotation yet it's quite a similar thing.

I've been raised by two married dudes, but I'm not perfect, but I really think that this is a little too harsh.

ModUlanopoNov 22, 20185 votes

The entire comment was "Neeko is a trap". The thread was about Neeko being a lesbian. It was in Story, Art and Sound - which is appropriate, given the discussion was about the character's personality, relationships and back story. There's no context there to make it o"fun and respectful" - though I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a circumstance where it could be "fun and respectful". Maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part.

It was also reported by someone. It's important to remember that we don't generally go hunting for things to moderate - there's always more than enough in the queue to keep us busy. Yes, we do scan threads with problematic titles and we do read the context of things that are reported to us, but mostly we just clean up where we can. The point here is that someone found it offensive.

The OP also states " it is a generally offensive term for trans people and while i accept that", going on to say that it has an inoffensive connotation in many places with regards to cross-dressers. That may be in some places, but we lack any way of knowing what they meant in this place. As moderators, we can't always assume good intent.

Jerry SeinfeIdNov 22, 20184 votes

What the fuck does trap have to do with trans people? genuinly. I don't see how it applies to either side of trans people.

Jhins GirlfriendNov 22, 20185 votes

[{quoted}](name=Jerry SeinfeId,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=ZrhhEeZQ,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2018-11-22T19:33:24.241+0000)

What the fuck does trap have to do with trans people? genuinly. I don't see how it applies to either side of trans people.

Because trans people sometimes get called "traps" for "tricking" people into thinking they're not trans. The problem lies in that the term doesn't exist in a vacuum so it starts getting applied to trans people and it's pretty dang rude and can lead to some harmful trains of thought. OP is also conflating crossdressing with being trans which is a whole 'nother can of worms

Mr ElessarNov 22, 20183 votes

You shouldn't decieve people into thinking you're not trans.

Jhins GirlfriendNov 23, 20185 votes

[{quoted}](name=Mr Elessar,realm=EUNE,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=ZrhhEeZQ,comment-id=000900000000,timestamp=2018-11-22T21:16:30.036+0000)

You shouldn't decieve people into thinking you're not trans.

I'm talking random people here. People who you're not romantically involved with don't need to know unless you want to share. Your being trans or cis isn't any of their business.

Beast BrawlerNov 23, 20182 votes

Okay but how is that a trap in any way shape or form? Literally the only way I've heard trap used other than the traditional bear trap type definition is when someone is talking about a twink dressed up as a girl, as it's a "trap" for straight guys who find them attractive and then learn that it's another dude.

Jhins GirlfriendNov 23, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=Beast Brawler,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=ZrhhEeZQ,comment-id=00090000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-23T05:34:00.906+0000)

Okay but how is that a trap in any way shape or form? Literally the only way I've heard trap used other than the traditional bear trap type definition is when someone is talking about a twink dressed up as a girl, as it's a "trap" for straight guys who find them attractive and then learn that it's another dude.

I'm not trans so I can't say I've seen it personally but one of my best friends has been called a trap before, and it's a really shitty thing to apply to a real living trans person.

Jerry SeinfeIdNov 22, 20184 votes

OP is also conflating crossdressing with being trans which is a whole 'nother can of worms

no they're relating crossdressing to the word trap, which is literally the fricking definition of a trap.

either way a person has the right to know wether they're dealing with a trans person if it concerns a relationship. I'm not saying it's what you should open up with but they atleast deserve to know in case they aren't comfortable with it.

ModUlanopoNov 22, 20183 votes

Pretty much this.

mtothe6thpowerNov 23, 20184 votes

Trap as a term was coined on, iirc, 4chan to describe men who crossdress as women and do so where they pass well enough to be perceived as a woman. Thus people finding them attractive or desirable in some way was a "trap" because to quote Austin Powers, "It's a MAN, man."

Trap is a term that can be offensive to trans people because trans people aren't crossdressing. Also, the history of the Trans Panic Defense, which basically was used when straight men would take a trans woman home with them, discover that they had a penis and then murder them in a fit of rage or whatever, because they felt that the trans woman in question had tricked them, or "trap"ped them, if you will.

I'm not explaining this well, so I'm sorry if it's confusing. Basically trap is harmful to trans people because they aren't trying to trap anyone, and the term was coined as a way to describe people who aren't transgender in the first place.

Jerry SeinfeIdNov 23, 20183 votes

If you go home with someone with the intent to fuck and you didn't tell em you actually have a dick. U're literally trapping em tho. So while I don't think it gives you the right to kill or beat em, it's still quite literally a dick move.

mtothe6thpowerNov 23, 20183 votes

No, they're not getting trapped. They're taking a woman home, just because the woman doesn't have the plumbing they expect doesn't mean that the woman is trapping them. They're falling victim to a preconceived notion. They're able to walk away and there's no harm no foul.

Jerry SeinfeIdNov 24, 20182 votes

Aye you're right the best way to gain respect for your group is to disrespect another groups preferences.

Barely anyone would actually kill or beat em up. That's not always the case, but just a little heads up would show respect and make them respect you more.

Respect has to come from both sides.

mtothe6thpowerNov 24, 20185 votes

No one's preference is being disrespected. The guys preference is for a woman, he's getting a woman. Now, if you're saying his preference depends on his partners genitalia then that's transphobic.

If your respect is contingent on knowing someone else's genitalia before you engage in sexual acts with them then you don't respect them to start with.

Jerry SeinfeIdNov 24, 20182 votes

Yes, wanting a girl with a vagina is transphobic. Ur an utter fucking moron if you genuinely believe that.

How dare this person (because this goes both ways mister, how dare you assume only men do this) want a relationship where they have the option to conceive a child in a natural way. Or even just have preferences in the people they are dating.

mtothe6thpowerNov 24, 20185 votes

Reducing people to their genitalia is transphobic, yes.

If someone says "the only reason I don't want a relationship with you is your genitalia" then they're transphobic. The pregnancy argument also doesn't work since there are ways for trans people dating cis people to have biological children.

Jerry SeinfeIdNov 24, 20182 votes

Noone is reducing anyone. You just want people to do that so you can tell em how bad of a person they are.

People have preferences in who they date. This goes from habits to smells to interests to looks to gender to mindset and a shit ton of other variables. Including what's between your legs. Some won't care about certain one's while others will care about other variables.

There's nothing transphobic about wanting the girl you date to have a vagina. There's nothing wrong with wanting to date a guy with a penis.

And you're right this ain't all about pregnancy. There might be ways to get a biological kid that's yours and only has DNA from both of you. They still can't do that in a natural way like I stated. But even so, this goes for gay people and lesbian people too. What if a girl isn't into guys or girls with dicks? Is she transphobic and sexist? No they're just a person with preferences.

I'll use your own example. Let's say We have a trans person who went from m to f and still has a dick. They're into guys but the dude she tried dating tells her he'd rather not because that's nice to what they're into. The trans person moves on with their life no harm no foul.

mtothe6thpowerNov 24, 20184 votes

"Yes, wanting a girl with a vagina is transphobic." This statement is reducing someone to their genitalia. It's saying she's only desirable in this case because of her genitals.

If a criteria to date someone is that they have the "right" genitals, you're a transphobe.

She's not sexist, she's a transphobic lesbian. By your logic, this hypothetical woman is only interested in people with vaginas right?

Okay? So the trans woman is understanding that the guy she was into was transphobic, so what?

Beast BrawlerNov 26, 20181 votes

What if women that don't have vaginas just don't do it for the guy? Is that ALSO transphobic? I don't think it's transphobic at all to have a sexual preference, it's just natural. If gays can't control being gay, then why do you expect straight dudes to be attracted to trans people, or to not have it as a criteria? It's just natural, there's no need to bash them for it and label them transphobes.

mtothe6thpowerNov 27, 20183 votes

Yes, it is also transphobic. There's nothing transphobic about having a sexual preferences, sure. Having a 'genital' preference however, yeah. If you only want your partners to have a certain set of genitals, you're a transphobe. Straight dudes are attracted to women, therefore they're attracted to trans women. So if they say "I'm not attracted to trans women" then they're a transphobe.

I'm not saying they have to be into every single trans woman they meet. Just like men aren't attracted to every cis woman they meet, but you can't just make negative sweeping generalizations about whole groups of people.