What goes, what doesn?t? (building our own community values)
Steph and Tsunami
In the months that followed we exchanged an encouraging dialogue about this. While trying to clarify what I meant in my FEEDBACK section (reproduced below), I tried to better understand where she was coming from. Perhaps my eagerness to keep our pages visitor-friendly might get in the way of some members? need to stay authentic and candidly honest. This isn?t ?my? zine, it is yours, and I want to enforce your best interests over mine. But I need you to share them.
Below are reproduced excerpts of Tsunami and my exchange, to invite you to weigh in. What do you think? This is submitted here to invite you into this dialogue. Since ?freedom of expression? is vital to our trans religious liberties this FEEDBACK section is a good place for you to help us build our own community values. And isn?t that was this zine is truly about?
FEEDBACK Pre-Issue 03, Summer 2005
Thank you, Donna (actually it was Sarah j. Babcock; sorry for the confusion - Ed), for your compliments about my writing. With the editing talents for which the Creator has blessed me I hope to help everyone?s writing shine a little brighter, without affecting anyone?s message.
I will also be careful about publishing any offensive rhetoric or tone. Donna, I was uncomfortable with the heavy tone of your reaction to Johnny Gann?s criticism to your support list. I didn?t get to see his criticism first hand, and perhaps it would have also struck me as put-offish. As we open ourselves to a broader audience I will likely edit any remarks that I or Amanda see as giving new readers a poor impression of ourselves. Since first one?s are so enduring, let?s make a good one!
With all that you have endured, Donna (note correction above - Ed), I give you my heartfelt understanding. My prayers go out to you to carry on and continue to fuel up on our support.
If any of you insist your message go through as is, then perhaps I could forward a copy to whom such comments are meant. And leave the pages of the ?zine more serene. Not that I would hide any dirty laundry that needs to air. But to ensure we are a place where any dirty laundry comes clean in the end.
As we respond to one another?s contributions in the FEEDBACK section, it is my hope to avoid any abrasive rhetoric. The Style Sheet for new contributors will include this warning: Any rhetoric that can be perceived as offensively abrasive will not be published. If dissatisfaction or other negative expression is vital to your point then sandwich anything of a negative tone between more positive and affirming rhetoric. I have just applied this positive-negative-positive format in my response above to Donna.
Seven-28-Zero/Five
Dearest Stephie,
I am opposed to any form of censorship (though I support constructive editing). I hope you never have to suppress someone?s letters to TRD ?cause someone else ?might? get offended. I have been oppressed and discriminated against in one form or another all of my life? I can?t support suppressing anyone?s free speech/expression. Maybe that should be the title of another section in the ?zine, ?Sounding Off.? And if anything, print the letters that sound off as is, with names redacted, like a lot of other ?zines do. ?Usually? someone can tell when something is directed at them, even if it?s said indirectly.
In solidarity, Tsunami
20050822
Dear Tsunami,
I share your concerns about ?free speech? and ?censorship.? However, from a slightly different angle. To me, free speech is liberating speech, unfettered expression that increases awareness and invites communication. Eloquent vitriol that cajoles others to pounce on the person of one?s angst, to the point that person?s point of view gets ignored, is in my view something that falls below the ideals of free speech. What if one soul?s free speech is another?s source of oppression?
I too ?have been oppressed and discriminated against in one form or another all of my life.? Often in the name of free speech and democracy. When my grade school peers cast aspersions on me and I objected, they quipped: ?It?s a free country and I can say what I want!? It was that kind of pop liberalism that turned me into a staunch conservative in the late 70s and early 80s. Now as a transpolitical transspirit I no longer rely much on such political constructs. I don?t think in such terms anymore.
I could go on and on about this, but I want to keep this down to a page. Perhaps this would be a good subject to dialogue openly in the pages of T-S, and perhaps have a section called ?Sounding Off? for those who feel they must vent. When done responsibly, where the writer truly owns her own feelings, and encourages the recipients to respond in kind, then this could be a vibrant section for some lively discussions. But if it merely spews a violent attitude, well, I see violence (including abusive verbalizations) and the ideals of free speech as being mutually exclusive. I cannot in good faith be a part of any organization that indulges malicious statements in the name of free speech and then calls the prudence of not being complicit to it as the political aspersion of censorship. My spiritual integrity is worth more than that. And I trust the synergy of our various spiritual heritages will assure our publication will not slide into some ?flaming? rag.
If Sarah j. Babcock has a personal issue with Johnny then I encourage them to dialogue and get it out in the open between the two of them. Using a public forum to settle scores is hardly productive. And what does that say about the gatekeepers who willingly passed the spiteful messages along? This is the kind of issue I was aiming at in my previous TRD contribution. I want to continue to encourage us all to keep the channels of communication open, and remain alert to anything that could dampen our attentive dialoguing.
In gender loving care, Steph
Eight-30-Zero/Five
Dear Steph,
Of course, I would never support ?hate? messages, or hate mail. But other than that I remain opposed to the oppression of free speech in any form. (E.g., who gives a fuck about burning a flag, it?s a piece of cloth.) Liberating to some individuals may be offensive to others? But not necessarily hateful.
Sarah pushed the envelope in her response to Johnny, and in their case it was obviously personal. But Johnny chose the forum, drew first blood, and she responded. Possibly they had no means (except via Amanda) to ?dialogue.?
That raises a whole new point. Is the TRD a ?public? forum, or are we a private group? Amanda could have just exchanged their letters between them, and none of us be the wiser.
I look at it like this: TG/TS offends some; I am offended by skinheads, etc. If I say those offended by TG/TS can?t speak as they want, then in turn I?m saying I have to bite my tongue. What?s next? Cuba? I can?t speak out against my government? If I can?t handle the way someone may ?verbally? express their discontent with me, what have I become?
Much less to police someone else?s speech. I think a caution warning along with a ?sounding off? section is the way to go. As I re-read Sarah?s response, I don?t see maliciousness. Now Johnny clearly had intent at certain points. It still rings better than ?pretend.? I?ve seen oppression administered under the guise of many things. Indeed, even whole nations oppressed for what they say is the good and integrity of others?but it?s always for themselves.
Of course, the small antics of Sarah and Johnny are far from sending us into a ?flaming? rag, but I share in the idea that we don?t want the TRD to become that.
Love, Tsunami