Determining acceptance criteria for hate-groups definition

[chican3ry]

This is a placeholder issue to host discussion on necessary acceptance criteria for a usable working definition of transphobic "hate groups" for the purpose of classifying them, the risks that they pose and communicating this with public bodies such as community groups, civil society organisations and so on.

In terms of conduct, hostile or abusive language will be moderated, but otherwise feel free to contribute feedback on the existing draft at:

drafts/hate-groups.md

[chican3ry]

In terms of this acceptance criteria phase, this will continue until the 28th of Febuary, when the project will transition over to proposing a draft that meets the acceptance criteria and soliciting feedback from relevant stakeholder organisations.

[chican3ry]

One question I'm not sure about, I have defaulted the license on this standard to the CC0 "Creative Commons Zero" license which waives all rights to the material into the public domain without warranty.

I am not a license nerd, and anyone browsing this who is, I'd be interested in input. I think this is an okay license to use, it's neighbourly, it's not designed primarily for tech, and a standard should be public property.

[theresnotime]

One question I'm not sure about, I have defaulted the license on this standard to the CC0 "Creative Commons Zero" license which waives all rights to the material into the public domain without warranty.

I am not a license nerd, and anyone browsing this who is, I'd be interested in input. I think this is an okay license to use, it's neighbourly, it's not designed primarily for tech, and a standard should be public property.

I asked an unnamed license nerd and they said

if the overall goal is to make [the content] free for anyone to use, without attribution nor the need to republish the changed text, then yeah that's a fair license this [isn't] a code repo so CC0 would also be the right license to use, [but] if it were code the Unlicense would be better vs the CC0

So lgtm!

[flippac]

CC BY does defend against an avenue of cultural attack? Specifically, adapted works have to say what's been adapted so they can't pass themselves off as the original. The [nominal?] requirement for attribution elsewhere is a pain in the arse though and I can see the argument for keeping the legalese low.

[chican3ry]

Contribution from transiness.com:

I haven't any concrete ideas, although I could make some suggestions. I'll just brainstorm and you can pick what you like from it!

• Dehumanisation: Likening or painting trans people as if they are sex offenders, violent criminals, paedophiles, predators, cheaters, rapists, "autogynophiles" or sexual deviants. Referring to trans medical care as "mutilation". Othering. Use of imigary which supports this - eg Karen White.
• Cissexism: Invalidating trans people's identities, that there are "only two sexes" and this is the only way that society should be divided. Misgendering trans people, disrespecting trans people's identity. Use of stigmatising and inaccurate labels, such as "trans-identifying men/women". Use of terms such as "woke" to oppose trans people's identity. Use of imagery which supports cissexism (not using images of pretty trans women, or well adjusted trans men)

Ostracisation and segregation: Ostracising trans people from safer spaces, health and social care, sport, employment, voluntary support networks on the basis of cissexism or of dehumanisation. Often no "alternative" will be offered, and when it does, segregation, which poses a significant risk to trans people because it "outs" them will be suggested. Integration within existing frameworks in society, with cis people, are vehemently opposed. Use of invalid data / strawmen / theoretical fearmongering: Use of unsupported "concerns" as if they represent valid data. Use of bad science uncritically (eg ROGD and autogynephilia), or manipulating results from scientific studies to reflect the position that dehumanisation, cissexism and segregational demands. I'm sure there's much more, but that's what springs to mind immediately!

[chican3ry]

Also drawing attention in line here to #3 "classes of harmful orgs" as a potential side conversion to be had.

[SiobhanOL]

Some thinking aloud, so to speak.

I actually think it's worth it to look at "group" and not just "hate" as well, because there's a lot of weird edge cases. I recall the SPLC not declaring TERFism a hate group on the basis that it was an ideology rather than a group, for example.

It probably has to mean "more than one person." Is that sufficient? Is a Twitter tag a group? This github? Particularly if we're going on to discuss tactics, this to me would also imply "a shared purpose." Must it have a defined governance? Probably not - a prolific Facebook group could have "hate group" output without any charters or internal procedures. So my instinct is the necessary pieces for "group" are "more than one person convening for a shared purpose." But then we run into the problem of groups with more than one purpose - where the hate promotion is a side activity. Think all the reactionary subboards that regularly trade in racism and anti-semitism. Are we okay excluding these on the basis that it isn't their stock and trade? Maybe that's useful rather than a hinderance.

"Hate" I think is trickier. As transiness.com contributed, there are a wide variety of tactics cissexists use to promote their views. And in both my experience and research, very few people willingly admit that hate is a primary motivator for their actions. Maybe this means our working definition refers to the output of the group rather than the input. Hate is the consequence of the group rather than its motive. My main argument in favour of this is that it sidesteps "I don't have problems with trans people I just think women have rights blah blah"

As a starting point, what are the consequences of cissexism?

It encourages apathy from fence-sitters. The situation seems bad but trans people seem "also bad" - maybe "they deserve it"

It promotes what it sees as zero-sum conflicts, thereby justifying aggression. If trans women are "invaders" and invasions are something we repel, where does that leave trans women?

It recruits, trains, or channels "overachievers" who seek to "correct/defend against the aggression." Acknowledging that the stochastic piece is one output even if it's not the intention.

The thread between all of these seems to be the variety of ways the group promotes apathy towards, and the execution of, injustice against the target. Which might give us in total: "More than one person convening for the shared purpose of promoting apathy towards, and the execution of, injustice against a group of people."

I think this is a good starting point if we're just looking at what hate groups end up "doing." I think transiness.com provided a good inventory of how they do it rather than what.

[kimadactyl]

It probably has to mean "more than one person." Is that sufficient? Is a Twitter tag a group? This github?

Interesting. Just on this bit - i think for me its more the "organised" as much as the "group".

One person can set up a campaign/company/front, get a logo made, do some promo etc and seem much bigger than they really are. I would consider this kind of org an organised group even if it's run by one person.

On the other side I wouldn't really consider randoms dogpiling on twitter an organised group. (Assuming they are in fact genuinely randoms for this thought experiment).

Proposal: change the document to be about organised hate groups to make this clearer and crispier as a target.

[chican3ry]

In response to @SiobhanOL I'll contribute this:

At Trans Safety Network, we've been working for a long while on a principle of focus on "organised harm" with "hate" being a short hand for "organisations and campaigns that exist largely or solely for the purpose of doing harm"

So really it's not about ideology. Rethinking this, so as to make it less passive, for us I think it's really been about recognising and exposing efforts to coordinate organised hostility. Because harm can happen in accidental unintended ways due to organisation but really what we're talking about is more adversarial than that.

Re @kimadactyl's proposal I agree that it would be good to retool the language on this. I had anonymous feedback from researcher acquaintance earlier who fed back that their organisation and a lot of others are working on moving away from the "hate" framework for similar reasons of, the particular Ideology doesn't come into it. There are lots of bigots in the world and most of them are mainly harmful to themselves. The issue is with this organised hostility that is going on and needing to create language to expose it and help people recognise and disrupt it.

So I'm very supportive of the language adjustment (but am trying to think of a better word than "hate" which is hard because it's one syllable, everyone already knows what you mean, etc.)

[chican3ry]

I'll just add as well though, the main thing at this stage is trying to construct good acceptance criteria for the definition.

I.E what problems are we solving here, what user stories does this term need to satisfy?

[chican3ry]

Have created a pr #5 trying to address your proposal @kimadactyl and to open the discussion on terminology a bit more explicitly

[TABLewisW]

Defining things is often difficult because there are always edge cases and outliers to your definition, but if you make the definition too wide, it becomes meaningless. If we look solely at the terms involved, an ‘anti-trans hate group’ may simply be any group of people who distribute hate against trans people and the trans community. This definition is wide enough to include essentially any fascist or right-wing organisation (even if they’re not outwardly or primarily focused on transphobia), but lacks the specificity needed for the phrase to point at something that the word ‘fascist’ or ‘transphobic people’ doesn’t already cover.

Therefore, we probably need to be more specific and say that an ‘anti-trans hate group’ is a group of people whose specific aim is the harm or even (eventual) elimination of trans people and trans identities. Under this definition, we can see groups like the LGB Alliance being strong contenders for being an ‘anti-trans hate group’, which is good, because this is exactly the kind of group we’re hoping to capture within the term.

However, it seems to me that we may want to also separate the term from state institutions. Even though governments often do some or all of these things, the state is not a group, it is a wide system of control that is participated in by almost everyone whether they wish to or not. This shows that the joining and participation in the group ought to be intentional on the part of members, it is not merely that they are transphobic people within a group, it is their specific aim to harm trans people in some way. This could be through a number of avenues. It could be through the spread of misinformation through media outlets to the general public about trans people, creating an (even more) hostile atmosphere for trans people to navigate in their everyday lives.

It could be through the petitioning of state institutions or corporations to alter their policies in such a way that trans people are excluded from places or are treated as if they are a threat. This harms trans people by denying them places to go, such as domestic violence shelters or housing shelters, which are both things lots of trans people may have to use. Adding on to this is the process of petitioning and debate around trans people whilst they are unable to access trans-affirming healthcare such as puberty blockers in a timely manner, keeping healthcare (administered through institutions such as the NHS) in a constant state of limbo. This lack of access to healthcare, including long wait times and often demeaning conversations with GPs, is harmful to the mental health of trans people.

It could be through funding conversion therapy or pathologising trans identities, which attempts to erase people’s trans identities under the guise of healthcare, which reduces their transness to nothing more than a mental disorder that needs to be fixed. These are just a few examples.

This defines an anti-trans hate group in terms of the actions they partake in based on their anti-trans ideologies.

The logic of these arguments are (usually, but not necessarily) predicated on the idea that trans people don’t really exist and are basically lying about their gender identity and experiences. They must see trans people's existence as some kind of threat to themselves or the status quo, a large enough threat to warrant opposition, regardless of reality.

I hope this contribution can be helpful in some way.

• Lewis from Transgender Action Block