For a community that bills itself as
“General discussions about “science” itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:”
And is full of news articles explaining science, having a biologist explain the science of sex biology is not a right fight for a general science community.
:l
Not a good look.
Patiently awaiting Sal’s response.
Prepared to be disappointed.If I look on Science@mander.xyz it’s still there, but that might be me. This being said.
BPR. The whole gender debate has become toxic.
Most plausible scenario is that it’s not a reflection on what you posted but that the mod didn’t want to deal with the comment section, and removed it for that reason.
Or they didn’t read the article and assumed it was ‘it’s just science’ transphobia, because there are so many of them even on here. Probably should have taken a breath and read the article, which is still up on !science@lemmy.ml and is genuinely interesting.
Or they didn’t want to set a precedent of allowing one article on gender/sex, only for a hundred transphobes to start whining that their ‘scientific’ articles weren’t allowed.
I mean, maybe they should have locked it, but there’s a plausible reason they didn’t want to deal with that shit and shut it down fast.
Then just ban all the transphobes
Easier said than done.
So what that is the job of moderators. Not banning transphobes because they are too lazy is a piss poor excuse
Can’t expect a volunteer mod to moderate 24/7. Plenty still slips through.
Probably best to lock threads like this, if as a mod you know you can’t moderate properly.
But as I said above, the post is still visible for me, so seems like the mod reinstated it.
I don’t want to speak on behalf of Sal, but I would like to point out that I have seen a lot of posts on similar topics on Mander.xyz. I think it’s worth waiting for Sal to comment on this before people get the pitchforks out.
I will also point out this from the sidebar of mander.xyz:
Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.
This is something that I talked to Sal about before creating !publichealth@mander.xyz, and I was satisfied with the answer at the time. Everything intersects politics at some level, and those intersections are more prominent in some topics. Mander.xyz is an academic focussed instance, and it tries to carve out a space for constructive conversation the communities that are hosted on it. Sometimes it’s not the topic that is the problem, but the quality of the specific article that is being posted.
Also, that particular community is supposed to be about ‘General discussions about “science” itself’, and if you look at the very old posts, they were meta discussions about the scientific method and scientific research. It seems to have taken a new life over the years though.
It’s also possible that the comment section was the concern, and maybe it was easier to remove the post instead of carefully going through all the comments. I think Sal has earned a chance at speaking about this before the pitchforks.
@Sal@mander.xyz Could we get an explanation on this. It seems unfair to have a good scientific article removed from the Science instance seemingly without good reason.
I think this probably covers the explanation: https://mander.xyz/comment/27596923
The goal when creating this instance was to a place to discuss about scientific discoveries, post pictures of nature, and have a set of communities for this while avoiding polarizing content. If someone wants to discuss politics they can click on ‘All’ and go right to it. The scope is explicitly anti-politics because I do not want to moderate a politically charged or polarizing environment, and I know that many people with interests like mine will also appreciate such a space existing because they see enough pictures of Donald Trump and polarizing discussions elsewhere.
it seems like @Sal@mander.xyz thinks trans people are too polarizing for his instance. his comments come across as a very “don’t disturb the status quo” kind of liberal. or as I like to call them, a Nazi collaborator. because if you aren’t fighting the fascists in some way, then you’re actively helping them.
“Stop making it political!”
- People with the worst politics that don’t want to be outed.
So is climate change political? What about vaccines or the shape of the earth?
Agreed, by choosing to decide arbitrarily that trans people are political and shouldn’t be discussed @Sal@mander.xyz is helping to further the fascist agenda against trans people. Lots of people don’t know this but the number one way media alienates trans people isn’t by making offensive jokes about us, or invalidating us directly, but by just erasing our existence.
That’s what gamergate and not wanting queer people in video games and movies is about. They want us to stop existing in the minds of public people.
@derHolz@sh.itjust.works You have an interesting account, not at all suspicious in any way…
The scope is explicitly anti-politics
real “i don’t do politics, politics do you” energy here
I look forward to them applying this consistently and banning all biology articles that mention anything relating to sexual reproduction and development. No? Just trans people? Weeeeird… Huh…
Probably articles about gayness and sexual orientation in general as well. It seems like something he would also have a problem with for being “political”.
Maybe I should do it. I should become the first person to make a truly unbiased, “no politics allowed” community. Posting is banned. It will just be a blank page. I look forward to their attentive and continuing viewership.
i think it was removed because the comments got way too heated. shoild prabably have been locked instead. doesn’t explain the given reason though.
Yeah that’s not a good reason to remove posts. Really hope we get an explanation.
Meh. If you’re unable to properly moderate the comment section, you end up giving the bigots a platform, and vulnerable people are unsafe. That’s how hate speech proliferates on the internet.
There’s a good reason to lock certain topics, removing them less so, although it does stop bigots whining about not being able to share their stunning insights on those certain topics.
It’s the whole reason places like beehaw or gay clubs exist.
I saw that get removed because I tried to comment. I’m befuddled about it, too.
I am gonna need more context
OP had the article posted in another community. I also cross-posted it to several trans and intersex communities myself. You can read it here.
And that news source is entirely written by scientists with relevant experience. If that’s not suitable for a science community that allows something other than scientific papers, I don’t know what would be
Thanks, this doesn’t make the mod in question look any better.
It’s there now. Or maybe a different science instance?
It’s up, but from a different user. So the original takedown is still in effect
as far as i can tell it’s removed from !science@mander.xyz and remains present on !science@lemmy.ml
