#whump discord | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

emcscared-whumps · 6 months

Text

IS WHUMPLOVERS COLLABORATE TRANSPHOBIC???

I'm going to start off this post by saying that I usually like to stay well-clear of drama. I have no desire to get myself involved; I like to stay in my dark little corner and write my dark little stories. However, a post 'exposing' the transphobia and misogyny in the whump Discord server @whumplovers-collaborate was brought to my attention, and I could not sit idly by and watch it pass by, so I will make an exception to my rule.

Without further adue, I am emc, and I am a member of the mod team over on Whumplovers Collaborate. I have been a member of the server since, 20/11/2021, two days after the creation. As I write this post, I have been assisting in modding it for roughly a year (honestly, I don't remember ^-^').

A serious accusation of transphobia and misogyny has been made against the WLC Discord server: is it true?

It is NOT true.

Transphobia and transphobic behaviour is a serious and abhorrent offence that must always be taken seriously, and I am pleased to see such a large response from the community. This also means that allegations should not be made lightly. In spite of this, I would like to express my deepest disappointment by how quickly a sparsely sourced, anecdotal post was spread within our community (if you could even call a few out of-context quotes and the offer of screenshots sources). It was borderline slanderous to the owner, my team, and my friends; and it attempted to tear up our hard work.

Mateship is extremely important to me, so when I saw this, I could not let it go unchecked. In response, I am making this post to shed some light on the situation. I will be including fully sourced screenshots and quotes, and responding to allegations, so that you all may come to your own conclusions.

PLEASE READ TO THE END.

Warning: This will be long. I will make it as long as it needs to be to convey the information correctly with proper sourcing.

This post contains evidence of misogynistic, sexist, and harmful statements on sexual assault that may be upsetting for some readers. Proceed with caution if this is something that could affect you.

Source links associated with screenshots are hyperlinks attached to the image.

What even happened?

In short, there was an incident in February this year (2023) following the question of a member on the controversial topic of why they didn't like lady whump, the discussion veered into the meta theory behind it, which sparked misogyny, accusations of misogyny, sexism, accusations of sexism, accusations of transphobia, and grossly incorrect statements on the effect that sexual assault and rape has on male (and other AMAB (Assigned Male At Birth)) people.

[Read the whole conversation].

(This is a Discord link to the beginning of the incident. If you are a member, you have likely already seen it).

You can read the Tumblr post in question [here].

(Also, please keep in mind that I am Australian and it all happened from 0100-1000 AEST on a work day (Friday). I did not have a direct hand in this conversation as it happened. I did, however, assist behind the scenes after).

Mods at the time:

Orange User

Purple User

Blue User

Yellow User

Server Owner:

Sky Blue User

The Allegations

The discussion of lady whump is not without controversy in terms of gender identity, because there are many different areas of the spectrum that are not explicitly covered in the tagging systems, which are usually binary with a couple of umbrella tags of other nonbinary genders, which by nature can never fully describe the deep way in which humans experience and express gender.

Alleged Transphobia:

Firstly, let's define transphobia, and then have a look at the incident with that in mind:

Transphobia consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general. Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence or anger towards people who do not conform to social gender roles. [Source]

Transphobia and trans-exclusion are not the same.

Trans-exclusion is the intentional and malicious exclusion of transgender people from certain spaces, activities, and discussions. The exclusion of transgender people in certain contexts, such as some gender discussions where transgender people are not the focus, and in which no attacks are made, are not themselves transphobic. However, trans-exclusionary behaviour is often co-morbid with transphobia, hence the association.

The mod censored in orange had expressed an interest in only reading whump of cisgender men. Subsequently, it was argued that the tagging of lady whump, alongside the tagging of male whump and nonbinary whump is inherently 'transphobic' because of the exclusion of other more or less binary genders.

(Screenshot 1)

That is trans-exclusionary at worst, but that is arguable.

The red user misinterprets the mod censored in purple's previous message "some people don’t like to bother with it" in relation to tagging or not tagging for transgender characters [Source], and incorrectly assumes that the meaning was "‘some people don’t like to bother’ with trans characters."

(Screenshot 2)

The full message from the mod censored in purple that the user censored in red had replied to reads:

10/02/2023 01:34 Some people don’t like to bother with it. And I think that’s something people can respect [Source]

The above message sent by the mod censored in purple was in reply a previous message the user censored in red sent in reply to the mod censored in orange. It provides the context for "some people don't like to bother with it." It reads:

10/02/2023 01:31 I still question how you want to know if they’re cis like, I think tagging every piece of work stating a character is trans is,, not always necessary or good That’s just what I wanted to clarify like you will not always get to know what’s in someone’s pants [Source]

This does not count as trans-exclusionary, because it could be effectively argued that tagging for a transgender character when that fact does not become relevant is wrong.

The user in red took then took the mod censored in purple's whumpee gender preference to mean main character (of general fiction) gender preference, and insinuates that they are transphobic.

The conversation was not transphobic as the post purported it do be, nor was it truly trans-exclusionary.

The most 'transphobia' that happened was in relation to users' expressed preferences for whumpee gender for the purposes of reading (and writing) whump fiction for whumperflies, rather than fiction in general; and the insinuations of a user's transphobia in relation to if and how a user chooses to or not to tag the genders of the main characters, (especially whumpees), in their whump works.

This is a long established debate within our community, and while some members (of the whump community at large) may express certain preferences for transphobic reasons, no one in this specific conversation did.

I believe the accusation that the whole server is transphobic arises from the fact that two of the mods at the time expressed a whumpee gender preference for only cisgender men. Whumperflies in my experience (and that of many others), are a very physical sensation in reaction that I cannot control to whump that I enjoy, therefore, calling certain whump gender preferences trans-exclusionary is incorrect.

There was another part of the conversation that took place after the previous screenshots, and there was some trans-exclusion inherent in it because of the focus on of sex and gender in relation to that subject, but it is a completely different issue, and it will get its own subsection.

Misogyny, and Harmful Statements on Sexual Assault and other Violence Against Women vs Men:

In the previous subsection on alleged transphobia, I mentioned another part of the conversation would get its own section. This is that section.

A user made a frankly disgusting, untrue, and extremely harmful statement on the severity of the effects of rape and sexual assault of women and men, saying that it is not as inherently bad when it happened to men and other AMAB people.

(Screenshot 3)

The full message from the user censored in pink reads:

10/02/2023 09:10 I do see the point some people make about how certain kinds of "whump" tropes are treated or developed with women vs with men, especially in mainstream media, but sometimes some people do go overboard with the downright sanitization of those tropes in general, and apply specifically in fanfiction [Source]

Those statements made by the user censored in brown were not okay, and that part of the conversation caused the biggest stir among the mods, which will be covered under the Actions section.

The statement of that user was far more misogynistic and offensive to victims of any kind of sexual abuse, than it was trans-exclusionary. It was not transphobic. Regardless, it was wrong, and every single mod, including myself, and the owner, understands that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The user censored in brown also went on to say that (general) violence, as well as sexual assault against men and AMAB people, was also inherently less serious because of their sex, adding that it was humourous in some contexts.

(Screenshot 4)

(Screenshot 5)

One of the mods on the scene, censored in orange, made a subject change request four minutes after these harmful statements began [Source]. There was one other response from that mod called into question by the post this one responds to, but I will cover that in the following section Accusations.

The conversation, without question, was misogynistic and sexist, and harmful.

Overall, the reductive and infantilising way that women and AFAB people were discussed by the user censored in brown was, without question, misogynistic and sexist. The way that sexual assault and violence was discussed by the user in brown was gross, ignorant, and perpetuated harmful beliefs on the subject, particularly where men and other AMAB people are the victims. In all instances, the user censored in brown was called out by other users and told that those statements were wrong. (I did not include that in the second screenshot above, as I feel the first screenshot adequately represents the general response. Once again, you can read the full conversation from start to finish [here]).

Again, there was no transphobia present in the user censored in brown's discussion, only the omission of non-cisgender and other nonbinary genders when discussing a given gender. There were NO direct attacks made against transgender and nonbinary people that invalidated them.

(Screenshot 6)

It should also be noted that the user censored in brown openly admitted ignorance in the matters of gender, gender expression, and other topics discussed, and expressed willingness and desire to learn.

(Screenshot 7)

This does not take away the hurt and harm of their statements, and whether true or not, it should still be noted.

Accusations: The Post

The post made a few other accusations against us, which I will now address. Some will be covered in this section, others will be covered in the following section on Actions.

We did introduce a new policy "not to talk about 'controversial topics' or get into arguments," [Paragraph 2], however, it is not a numbered rule. This will be covered in the Action section, but that was not all that was done.

Paragraph 5 is somewhat true. As detailed in the previous section, the transphobia was not present, trans-exclusion was barely present the omission of non-cisgender and nonbinary genders, but, one section of the conversation was overtly misogynistic, sexist, and ignorant. The main core of the problem was misogyny, and the harmful way in which sexual assault was spoken of. At no point were any direct attacks and invalidations made against transgender and nonbinary people or characters.

eventually, i shut it down by saying that this was not the appropriate venue for a transphobic cis person to get educated about the nuance of the trans experience and trans issues, but what he was saying was transphobic and he needed to stop now that he'd been told that. [Paragraph 6]

The above approximate statement made by the author in the server during the incident is pictured in Screenshot 7.

"After I shut things down for good," (the alleged shutting down is [here] on 10/02/2023 09:26), is misleading. The conversation did end shortly after that on 10/02/2023 09:53, 27 minutes later [Source], after more mod intervention, but not before veering into race representation in general fiction and the whump community.

The statement, "throughout this interaction, mods were emoji-reacting and responding to other things. at no point did any mod step in to help me or shut down the 'transphobia' or at all intervene in what was happening," [Paragraph 7], is false.

Two mods were present and attempting to mediate, and towards the end, got more explicit in their requests to change the subject and shut the conversation down. The author of the post in question mentioned that the mods didn't respond to the transphobia while it was happening, but given the timing of the messages, and that people, including the mods, cannot be present for every single second of a conversation, that is an unfair and untrue statement.

The first harmful statement made by the user censored in brown was made on 10/02/2023 09:08 [Source] and the mod censored in orange stepped in and requested a subject change at 10/02/2023 09:15 [Source], 7 minutes later. At the same time, that mod was stated to not be at home, and was also organising a media stream [Source]. They also notified the mod team of the issue [Source].

(Screenshot 8)

(The above screenshot is in the mod channel of WLC).

The reactions would have partly been to show that the mods have seen up to certain places, perhaps agree with certain points so that the present members could anticipate a reaction without further perpetuating the conversation, and were going about their responsibility to catch up with, and deal with the situation. Mine were for those purposes, especially considering I was asleep and commuting to work at the time the incident occurred, and caught up when and as I could. It is not fair to say we did nothing at all when we did not respond instantaneously, and when it is also untrue.

Additionally, I speculate the direct response to the transphobia the author of the post in question would have wanted was a direct, verbal, public denouncement of all of those statements made by the user censored in brown, and the user themselves. When other users had already done that, some quite eloquently, it would have been both unnecessary and harmful for one or more mods to have participated, especially when the present mods were already busy handling the situation behind the scenes with the rest of their team, and the current #1 goal at the time was to end the conversation, not perpetuate it. It would have turned into dogpiling, which is unbecoming of the professional way the mod team is expected to act and handle situations when they are doing their jobs, and it is damaging to a potential future ally, perpetuates the incident, and is generally unfair.

We cannot allow the dogpiling of any person or member, even when they're in the wrong, and especially not by the mod team, because that could turn into us dogpiling anyone we disagree with, and then it could happen to anyone we dislike. An authoritative group who acts irresponsibly like that is not one you want in charge of any community space, nevermind one as large and as diverse as the WLC Discord server. I am sure those of you reading can understand the reasoning.

Also, to touch on the claim of ignorance and desire to learn; in the name of fairness, the mod team must put aside our biases and opinions. As there is no way to prove nor disprove the truth behind those claims, we must therefore act in good faith, especially when so many allies have similar beginning stories.

Paragraph 7 also mentions a seemingly questionable quote from the mod censored in orange. The Author of the post stated:

after i shut things down for good, one of the mods said 'thanks for keeping everything respectful’ which was a truly laughable thing to have said in that situation. [Paragraph 7]

This is mostly true. The mod censored in orange did make a similar statement, however, it was not a direct quote, it certainly wasn't sourced in the post, and the misleading nature of the first clause of the above quote makes an implication that the author of the post was the only one to do anything about it, which is incorrect.

(Screenshot 9)

Read it in full context from [here].

This message was sent after a subject change request from the topic covered in the subsection Misogyny, and Harmful Statements on Sexual Assault and other Violence Against Women vs Men, made by the same mod, to which all of the current participants agreed to and did not rebuke [Source], but did not obey.

As counterintuitive as this seems, there was a reason for this wording.

When asked about the intention behind that message, the mod in question responded that their intention was to thank the members involved for respectfully responding to their request and not arguing it.

(Screenshot 10)

(The above screenshot is in the mod channel of WLC).

They also added that they acknowledge that the conversation was not especially respectful, but were using that wording as a de-escalation technique commonly used in the workforce, as well as thanking the participants for not actively and directly harassing each other.

10/11/2023 23:37 It was just like… ok they haven't exactly been all that respectful, but they haven't been actively nasty either, so I'll just say thank you before asking them to move on. You say "thank you for your consideration" or "thank you for the respect" even if there was neither of those things [Source]

It was ignored, but users did not express animosity toward the mod censored in orange.

The following statements will be addressed:

"i was blamed for causing drama, essentially," [Paragraph 2]

and

"[The server owner] blamed me for what happened because i refused to allow rampant transphobia to proceed unchecked." [Paragraph 10]

You did not receive any direct blame in any channel, nor was the announcement (Screenshot 21) aimed at you specifically. You actually handled yourself extremely well without attacking anyone, and given the situation, that is genuinely commendable.

(Screenshot 11)

(The above screenshot is in the mod channel of WLC).

Yes, there was indirect blame in the announcement, but it is spread among every participant, including you, irrespective of if they were right or wrong, because they were all to blame for disobeying multiple direct mod rulings (see the Actions section for evidence), to end the conversation and change subject. The team decided singling out individuals, especially publicly for this, was not the right move. This is the reason that it was stated in DM conversation from the owner that the user censored in brown was not the only one at fault.

Relatedly, the announcement never said that calling out transphobia [referred to in Paragraph 13] is wrong. It took issue with the fact that no one obeyed a mod ruling, which resulted in the elongation of the incident. If it had been obeyed, it would have been over much faster and with far less hurtful statements.

According to Paragraph 11, asking why someone left a server is weird. Asking for feedback isn't weird, even Discord will ask you why you have left a server with a little survey. Anyone who has spoken to the server owner person-to-person for more than five minutes would know that they value and are always looking for feedback. Asking why a member left, especially after an incident like that, could be coincidental or related to the problem, therefore, they were seeking clarification. Gathering feedback is not weird.

Additionally, I have never known the server owner to "whine" or "throw a fit." Frankly, the statement is extremely insulting; especially when it is backed up by nothing, not even a transcript or approximate quote.

Paragraphs 14 and 15 express discontent with the mod response. I will respond to this personally for one moment because I was one of the mods the author of the post DM'ed, so please forgive the coming bias and informality, I will do my best to mitigate it.

The author of the post expressed satisfaction at the time with their interactions with me.

(Screenshot 12)

(The above screenshot is a DM).

I also was not "unwilling to do anything in the moment," [Paragraph 15], nor were the mods. I was asleep and going to work, while they were trying to end the conversation. I most certainly did not "[fail] to do anything after the fact either," [Paragraph 15], and nor did the other mods. Direct actions will be covered in the next section Actions. Additionally, if you look at the dates on some of the screenshots, you'll find that they are after the incident. In fact, most of the discussion happened after as those who were not present caught up and then started the process of discussing what actions to take. I was working very hard after the fact to get the response I thought was needed, so I do not appreciate the sentiment with which that statement was made.

the mods i spoke to also got defensive and upset when i pointed out that by not expressing disagreement with the owner’s actions and by throwing up their hands and saying 'oh well, nothing we can do!’ [Paragraph 15]

False.

I did express disagreement and discontent with some aspects of the way the incident was handled, but, in your hurry to accuse us of transphobia and bigotry via 'silence,' you have forgotten that I am part of a team that assisted the server owner, and we did not have the final say. As a team, we all expressed our opinions and what we thought should be done, but at the end of the day, we, and I certainly, will respect the ultimate decision, and will not betray the trust of every team member and the server owner by taking matters into my own hands.

As a team, we collectively agreed among ourselves on possible actions, and that was the advice we delivered to the owner.

That is how a team works.

The complaints of Paragraph 8 and 9 will be discussed further throughout the post.

Action: What was Done About the Incident and did it Work?

Subject Change Requests:

During the incident, four subject changes were requested, but were ignored.

(Screenshot 13)

Another subject change was requested only minutes later, (see Screenshot 9), however, conversation on the previous topic continued.

(Screenshot 14)

See also: Screenshot 7.

Eventually, conversation switched to POC representation in whump and fiction, another subject that could potentially lead to a discussion with harmful statements like this one.

The last explicit mention of the previous topic occurred on 10/02/2023 09:30, 14 minutes after the previous subject change request at 10/02/2023 09:16 [Source].

Another two subject change requests were required during that following convesation before any further issues arose.

(Screenshot 15)

Several hours earlier at the subject of whether or not to tag character gender, the mods left a subtle hint that a subject change may be appropriate made by the orange and purple mods, which ended up being too vague, so it will not count toward the total number of subject change requests during the incident.

(Screenshot 16)

Mod Response:

The mods censored in orange notified the team (Screenshot 8) when the user censored in brown started posting. The team then responded in the mod channel, calling for a warning or another similar level of punishment to be issued. However, as we are spread across time zones, it was difficult to reach a consensus right away. Here are just a few snippets of the discussion:

(Screenshot 17)

(The above screenshot is in the mod channel of WLC).

(At the time, the user censored in brown had no introduction, so their approximate age was unknown).

(Screenshot 18)

(The above screenshot is in the mod channel of WLC).

(Screenshot 19)

(The above screenshot is in the mod channel of WLC).

(Screenshot 20)

(The above screenshot is in the mod channel of WLC).

Announcement:

There was a lengthy discussion among the mods about whether or not to issue penalties (that will be discussed in the Penalty subsection). Many of the mods agreed with me that two participants (not the author of the post in question) should have been reprimanded and/or spoken to in some way. However, it was collectively decided not to go this route, and, as a member of the team, I respected the decision. In light of this, instead of penalty, we pushed for an announcement, which we got.

(Screenshot 21)

Rule Change:

In response to the ignored subject change requests, a rule was created to give mods the enshrined power to request and enforce a subject change requiring immediate adherence by all users in case a situation like this arises in the future:

5. If I or a mod asks you to change the subject, do so immediately. There should be no further discussion of whatever it is by any of the participants. If you’d like to know why you were asked to change the subject, dm [the server owner] [Source]

The announcement also advised against discussion of discourse, and other meta and/or controversial topics within the server. The reasoning was that this incident stemmed from a topic surrounded in discourse, and we are not interested in being a space to discuss those topics because it only leads to situations like this. There is no explicit rule banning meta and discourse topics, however, the mods reserve the right to end the conversation if necessary.

Mod Power Increase:

As a mod team, this incident was the first real test of how well we work together as a team. We were a new server, and the mod team was relatively new, so it was very difficult for the owner to gauge how well things would run. Behind the scenes, every mod handled themselves well, gave their honest advice, and respected the collective. Seeing this, the owner's faith in us increased, and as a direct result, mod powers were increased across the board.

As a direct result, the mods have more influence over decisions, and mod powers were increased across the board. In addition to the new rule on subject changes, a select extra couple of mods were granted kick and ban permissions to deal with any violations of the rules should the owner be unavailable.

There is also a jail role which every mod is able to utilise in the event of the kick/ban powered mods being unavailable, or if a user incurs a punishment where a kick or ban would be too harsh, and a strike inadequate.

Penalty:

To address Paragraph 12, the user censored in brown indeed received no official punishment for breaking Rule 1 (despite the strong advocacy for one).

The user censored in brown left approximately one month later, on 16/03/2023.

(Screenshot 22)

A ban would have been too harsh given their admission to ignorance and expressed desire to learn and do better (Screenshot 7), which we cannot ignore. Therefore, they should have received a strike for their appallingly sexist and misogynistic statements. Nothing further would have been required as the immediate response from other users in public, in our opinion, would have made it enough.

As a whole, we recognise the mistake concerning the lack of official penalty, and we strive to do better every single day by regularly refining our policies and protocol, and recognising the signs of an incident faster.

This said, the consequences for the user censored in brown are not null. If they were to get involved in another incident, the consequences would be immediate and harsh because of their actions in, and our learning from the incident in February.

The user censored in brown returned on 29/09/2023 [Source] with no incidence.

Additionally mentioned in Paragraph 12, the owner had every right to "whine," [Paragraph 12], as you say, about the assumption that nothing was done about it, because that is wrong, and it was very insulting to the mod team, including myself, who worked hard to make action and change happened following the incident.

The Insinuation what WLC is Unsafe for Queer People and Other Minorities

... Is incorrect.

We do not "actively [enable] bigots." Four attempts at shutting down the conversation were made by the mods present, but participants did not obey them. (This made everyone participating in the subsequent conversation at least partly to blame for the incident).

Furthermore, the statement "no rule was present to begin with making clear that bigotry was not tolerated, nor was one added," [Paragraph 9], is false. I would have thought that that Rule 1 was sufficient because respectfulness always excludes transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, and other bigotries.

1. Be civil, be respectful, be chill. No slurs are permitted in the server. [Source]

Additionally, there is a rule stating:

8. If you see anyone violating any of the above rules, or if you need an immediate question answered, feel free to @/Caretaker (Mod) at the site of the issue, dm [the server owner], or put it in #help-box

This can happen at any point in the conversation, including if there is no mod present, of if you don't think enough is being done.

The incident could still have been handled far better, but that does not make us a dangerous server, and that certainly doesn't mean we "actively [enable] bigots." At the time, we were still a relatively new server, some of us were inexperienced, and that was our first incident, (which is not to excuse my point). To have something of that severity happen as our first test was startling, however, we have learnt, and continue to learn and grow through continuous hard work and improvements to server policy and mod protocol.

I can say with full confidence that should a similar situation arise in the future, the response will look very different.

Sources: Is the Call-Out Post Reliable? Is this Post reliable?

The Callout Post:

No, the callout post is not reliable.

In addition to everything covered so far in this response, the original poster cannot reliably speak for the current state of the server, as they left on 16/02/2023, within a week of the incident (approximately 9 months ago)

(Screenshot 23)

The post in question was posted on 06/11/2023, approximately 9 months after the referred incident, which occurred on 10/02/2023. The timing indicates that it was a response to the advertisement in the Whumptober Discord server, which was posted 05/11/2023 (and was since taken down by the Whumptober mods who were linked the post in question).

Given the timing and the personal stance the post takes, I question the author's focus on grossly exaggerating their allegations of transphobia and failure to get what they wanted, rather than directly calling attention to the far more alarming and explicitly harmful statements regarding sexual assault. This post, which is seemingly designed to gain traction and support on Tumblr, almost completely ignores that and chooses to attack the server owner and management instead.

The author shares their personal experience and then tells everyone reading it to side with them without letting them decide for themselves using real evidence. It is almost completely unsourced. It is anecdotal and makes use of recalled quotes and summaries with no links or screenshots to substantiate them. The promise of receiving screenshots on request is not good enough, and "[not wanting] to make this even longer," [Paragraph 16] is not an excuse for not including any real evidence at all. I would also like to add that it can be done with message links rather than screenshots.

With the presence of misleading statements and misquotes, it does not bode well for its reliability.

This Post:

Is this post reliable?

I have done my very best to provide accurate and minimally biased explanations of what occurred (or if I did find myself responding to something personal, I alerted readers to possible bias), backed up by as much information and as many links as I possibly can so that any reader may access the evidence behind my claims and responses. I have also stated my affiliation with the server.

It is up to the readers to decide for themselves whether my post is reliable.

So, now we Know what Happened, Are we a Transphobic Server? A Conclusion

No.

@whumplovers-collaborate is NOT a transphobic Discord server, nor do we allow other harmful behaviours and statements to be shared within it.

Not one of us in management is transphobic, misogynistic, or bigoted as the post accused us, and not one of us supports or endorses it.

The actions of one member do not speak for an entire server.

One incident does not speak for an entire server.

While it could have been better handled, action was undeniably taken, and we have since learnt and modified policies and mod powers to ensure a faster and better outcome in the future.

This incident has also helped us realise the kind of space we want to be. Instead of a divisive and uncomfortable space rife with meta discourse, we want to be a space dedicated to the love of our craft, and the enjoyment of our hobby.

We are all here because of what we have in common; our love of whump.

Every day, we get closer to our ideal through the hard work and dedication of the mod team, and the server owner, without whom, this server would not exist.

We are very proud to report that there has been no incident since.

My Extremely Biased Conclusion

Before you spread the post that warns the "server is unsafe for trans people and the server owner is actively enabling bigots," [Paragraph 3], I urge you all to decide for yourself the quality of WLC based on the sources, the actual incident, and your own research, and your own experience, rather than a word-of mouth post from a disgruntled ex-member who has not been a member of the server for 9 months (and counting).

I also have a couple of questions:

Why on earth would a mod team where the non-queer members are the minority allow transphobia to fester in their server?

Does one incident make an entire server transphobic and unsafe?

Does a single member speak for the quality of the server and its community as a whole?

Who of you actually DM'ed the author of the post and requested evidence before you spread it?

Look up the definition of transphobia.

Have a think.

(These are rhetorical).

Also, to those of you who blindly reblogged this without doing your due diligence: shame on you.

In my opinion, it was a personal attack from a disgruntled ex-member who wanted the attention of a callout post on Tumblr, and you all fell for it.

Do. Your. Fucking. Research. Before you decide to slander and tear down the server owner, the mod team, and our server.

Do better.

Our server is not transphobic, nor bigoted in any other way. It never has been, and we are fully committed to making sure it never will be.

An Outro

Phew...

With all that off my chest, if you read through the whole post, thank you, I really do appreciate it. If you had a read through the sources too, that's even better :)

And I mean that genuinely regardless of the conclusion you come to.

With all this said, I will return to my dark little hole. I likely will not respond to any followup questions or argument on the matter, as at this moment, this is all I have to say, and making sure it was this thorough took a lot of time. I will not respond to any hate or harassment. Absolutely do not harass any member mentioned in the sources of this post. I will find out, and we will have words, that is a promise.

#long post #whump meta #discourse #whump discourse #whump community #whumpblr #whump discord #whumplovers collaborate #transphobia #important

17 notes · View notes