Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As can be expected from the title, the thread is about a podcast discussing JK Rowling and her views regarding the transgender community. The original poster says it is one of the best podcasts to which she has listened recently and she considered it to be balanced and rational. I haven't listened to this podcast, but it doesn't appear that many of those posting have either. Moreover, the discussion isn't so much about the podcast but rather Rowling and trans people. Topics on trans issues have become among the most controversial on DCUM and tend not to go well. As such, I generally end up locking or deleting them. In the case of this thread, I eventually locked it. Threads on transgender topics tend to have a familiar arc. They start out with posters demonstrating the best intentions, stressing that they are not anti-trans, indeed they are actively supportive, but they have questions or slight disagreements. In the case of this thread, Rowling is essentially used as a proxy to demonstrate this position rather than posters immediately attributing it to themselves. For instance, one of the first to respond writes, "Rowling is consistently measured in her speech and clearly has real compassion for transgender people...". But, as such threads continue, more and more responses are not only not "measured" but clearly anti-trans. The same poster claiming that Rowling has "compassion" for trans people goes on to imply that trans individuals are suffering from "delusion". Apparently the podcast compares support for the trans community to the Salem Witch Trials. Many of those responding point out that Rowling is succeeding brilliantly as a best-selling author and extremely wealthy person. Newly-passed laws are not limiting the rights of those like Rowling — who at worst risk being the target of mean tweets — but transgender people who are seeing restrictions on their most basic rights. On the other hand, a poster who describes herself as the "mother of a trans teen" who has listened to the podcast argues that Rowling is not exactly transphobic and that activists have overreacted to her. The real threat, this poster suggests, comes from right-wing politicians. As is common in such threads, posters complain that they can't engage in "respectful debate". The problem is that posts like those suggesting that trans people are "delusional" go unchecked or are even made by the folks who claim to be "measured". It is hard to have a respectful debate when one side's starting position is that the other side is delusional. In the case of this thread, it turned into a several page argument about whether criticizing Rowling meant support for rape and arguments that the trans community was motivated by misogyny. Rowling, and many of those posting, see advancement of trans rights as often resulting in set-backs for women's rights. Posters argue that they, and Rowling as well, only want to protect women's places. Because this necessitates restricting access by trans women to those places, this is viewed by supporters of trans people's rights as anti-trans. Repeated experience has proven that a nuanced discussion of that point is simply not possible on DCUM.

The second most active thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Florida expands ‘Don't say gay’ law to k-12", the thread discusses the expansion by the Florida Board of Education of Florida's Parental Rights in Education law, dubbed by critics as the "Don't Say Gay" law. The changes will prohibit discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity in fourth through 12th grade other than in specific circumstances. As many posters in this thread point out, much of the support for the original legislation was based on the argument that it was aimed at protecting the youngest students from such discussions. That argument has been mooted by this expansion. The basic conflict illustrated in this thread is between those who see sexual orientation and gender identity as sensitive topics that should only be addressed with parental consent and those who believe they are part and parcel of normal life and can't be separated from other topics. The first group views sex and gender issues as topics that can be contained in a vacuum, taught only in health classes from which students can opt-out. The second group questions whether such a vacuum really exists and wonders about the impact of the law on English classes, for instance, which will likely be prohibited from reading books with gay characters. Supporters of the law argue that schools should stick to the fundamentals of "reading, writing, and arithmetic" and argue that sex and gender topics are better taught at home. Opponents note that there are gay and transgender students, students with gay or transgender parents, and gay or transgender teachers. Is is really acceptable that these identities be ignored and prohibited from being acknowledged? The root of this debate is the fears among many Republicans that schools have been "grooming" children to be either gay or transgender. This presupposes that sexual orientation or gender identity are a choice. In contrast, others argue that neither of these is a choice but that individuals may hide or not understand their sexual orientation or gender identity due to lack of exposure to or education on the topic. So, on the one hand are posters who don't want to normalize being gay or transgender while on the other hand are posters who want to do exactly that. And, never betwixt will they meet, which is why we have long threads on the matter. Personally, I don't think many Florida Republicans have given this debate much thought. Their concern is over what will benefit them politically. Right now, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, with his eye on a Republican presidential primary, is eager to prove his conservative credentials. In the old days, that was done by promising lower taxes and smaller government. These days it is done by beating up on gays and transgender people with the government being used a tool for that end.

Third was a thread titled, "Was your competitive kid get shut out from all top 40 schools?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. We are nearing the end of the college admissions season for the year. The original poster notes a change in the nature of threads from those lamenting kids with high stats not being offered admission to top schools to threads in which posters ask whether their child should attend a specific university. The poster asks now that things are wrapping up, whether kids with high stats were actually not offered admission to any top 40 schools. Responses seem to be a mix of anecdotes about some kids receiving admissions offers and other kids not getting such offers. I haven't read closely enough to notice any trends. Despite the original poster's efforts to keep posters on-topic, there is considerable discussion about the alleged reason for various decisions. Admissions are often attributed to various hooks and refusals blamed on test optional admissions and a desire for diversity among admitted students. The thread ends up repeating many of the same themes from earlier threads and I really don't see much new in this thread. There are a few insightful posts that describe how parents transition from hope, to disappointment, to acceptance as their kids pursue admissions at top colleges only to end up at a very good universities that are slightly below the top schools. But, much of the thread is weighed down by resentful, angry missives spreading blame as widely as possible while claiming any successes are the result of gaming the system. Intermixed are several personal stories — both of success and lack thereof — that demonstrate the competitiveness of admissions at top colleges. There are also a few pleas that parents take a broader view of college admissions and not focus on arbitrary delineations such "Top 20" or "Top 40"

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" and titled, "My boyfriend does side work as a painter but telling me to hire someone to paint my house". As the title explains, the original poster is upset that her boyfriend, who does side jobs as a painter on weekends refused to paint her house and told her to hire someone else. She works as a social worker and, therefore, doesn't have a lot of money and it upset that he does jobs for others but not for someone with whom he is intimate. Most of those responding support the boyfriend, noting that spending time painting for the original poster would likely cost him lost wages from a paying job he had to turn down. Others stated that they disliked when friends presume that you will use your professional skills for free simply based on your relationship. But others side with the original poster. My main exposure to this thread came from reports. The original poster described a method of compensation for her boyfriend that didn't pass the "safe for Google" test. That became a big part of the discussion as posters debated whether transactional sex was appropriate. I had to track down and remove a number of posts that were a bit too explicit in this regard. At any rate, at this point everyone has to be asking whether this is poster is a troll. Sadly, yes. I checked the poster's posting history and she has recently posted about her husband — something that I suspect would come as a surprise to her boyfriend (and vice versa) — and has posted in the guise of a man complaining about his wife. The original poster does quite a bit of sock puppeting as well.