How to have productive conversations?

So I was thinking about how there have been a recent influx of posts about trans-related topics and so forth. I think this is great, but I've noticed a lot of us ending up having hurt feelings or just ending up feeling attacked or confused at the close of the discussion. I was thinking about how I'm personally really glad that we as a community are giving more thought to how what we say and do affects our trans constituents, but just giving it thought isn't always enough to facilitate conversations that aren't hurtful. As I was ruminating on this I realized that maybe this wasn't something specific to discussions over trans issues, either. There seem to be a lot of hurt feelings going around on EF as of late.

I thought this might be a good time/place to pull together all of our resources (links, tips for discussion, experiences, etc.) concerning having productive conversations on all sorts of topics. This includes but is not limited to talking about those with varied gender histories, sexual orientations, socio-economic statuses, kinky interests and so on and so forth. It can even be something as simple as respecting a difference of opinion over something like how new reviewers are admitted. The point is just to pool all of our insights here so we can maybe learn some things about how we can foster a community where more of us feel happy and safe and such.

So, and I hope this all is making sense, if anyone has anything to share that might help myself and other forum-users be as respectful as possible, please do! I have some links and a lil tip just to get things going.


Questioning Transphobia is an amazing site that can be really useful to all of us cis folks in understanding how to navigate conversations on trans-related topics without being presumptuous, marginalizing or otherwise hurtful. It's truly worth checking out frequently because it's always being updated and the writing is excellent.
Our very own Gabe writes some really great articles that I think are absolutely worth reading if you already haven't! The packing guide is awesome; I showed it to a friend of mine and he flipped his wig. He said it was the most comprehensive text on the topic and that he wished it was more accessible to non-EF users.
The Unapologetic Mexican is an awesome blog centered around Mexican pride and exposing anti-Latino/a prejudice. It's, again, very well written and really illuminatining, particularly if you live in the United States.
This satirical guide exposes and critiques conversational deflects that are commonly used to "derail" in conversations about marginalized groups. It's very funny, but also very eye-opening. Many of us are very likely guilty of using at least one of those defenses at one point or another. I know that I have been. I know that I have, and this site really helped me re-think the way I approached conversations about sensitive issues like race, gender, class, etc.

Finally, the tip that has helped me the most in any and all conversations is Speaking For Myself. Starting sentences with "I". Fewer assumptions are made and fewer feelings get hurt!

Okay...your turn!

I've definitely read responses once and had an immediate reaction that may not have been the respondent's intention. Pausing before responding to reflect on the possible meanings / tones / reasons of someone's response can help cool off immediate responses that might be angry, hurt, or defensive. I try to read statements multiple times, especially if I feel targeted, because someone's probably not trying to make me feel bad/mean/sad/whatever (and if they are, oh well, it's not going to do much good to attack them back). The dialogue is good, but giving ourselves time to absorb what is said and responding thoughtfully can help dialogue progress without as much tension.

That derailing for dummies thing made a VERY stupid and obnoxious generalisation about male circumcision. Only an idiot would equate male circumcision to female circumcision - it's absolutely NOT comparable to FGM - but the tone of that section is still TOTALLY hypocritical and a perfect example of the 'Horizontal Hostility' they warn of earlier.

Just because male circumcision isn't IN ANY WAY comparable to female circumcision doesn't mean it's not a valid issue to talk about in its own right (NOT in conversations that are actually about FGM.)

The author of derailing for dummies totally marginalized people who consider that an issue worth discussing.

I definitely don't read it that way at all. I read it in the sense that the author(s) is/are warning against saying "but what about ME" in conversations such as those about FGC/FGM. The "What About Me" counter makes the conversation, yet again, about the privileged person, and completely trivializes the marginalized person's issue or grievance. I don't think it's meant to diminish the importance of the issue of male circumcision in the west, I think it's just meant to put it into the perspective of privilege. Privilege hinged on gender, access to technology, a generally higher standard of living (supported by imperialism), etc. It's not that male circumcision isn't an issue that deserves to be talked about, it just isn't an issue that should be lumped in with FGC/FGM just because they both concern "circumcision". They are, in fact, very different, and a lot of what makes them different is privilege.

If only she'd put it as eloquently as you! ;-)

I think using the term 'privilege' can be a deeply wonky starting point, as I'm not sure who has the authority to designate somebody as 'privileged' in the first place - and anybody who does is almost certainly making a lot of assumptions about people that might not necessarily be accurate.

I mean, there are some pretty obvious ones - white people tend to enjoy advantages black people don't (like not getting pulled over, being more likely to get a job, being more likely to be born in a more affluent demographic.)

But you can't judge a book by its covers.

I might just be saying that because I'm used to a European perspective. We definitely have situations of privilege there - you can't kid me that us white folk living within the peripherique of Paris aren't INCREDIBLY privileged in comparison to the mostly Arab people living in the banlieues.

But equally, I grew up in an environment in which sexism pretty much didn't exist. I worked in a business in which ALL my bosses and managers were women, the CEO of our company was a woman and the highest earners in my department were all women (and they deserved to be, because they were brilliant at their jobs.)

So I was SHOCKED when I came to America and saw my new boss (a man) single out the ONLY female manager in the room to 'take notes' CLEARLY because she was a woman. She was a manager equal to any of the others, but she was the 'little woman' in the eyes of the boss (she sarcastically offered to get him a cup of coffee while she was at it, FTW.)

But America is SUCH a melting pot that I have ceased judging by appearances and I don't really like people who do (by 'judging' somebody as privileged or not.)

I remember meeting a black guy in jeans and a baseball cap who I thought was a rough and ready builder - and he was actually a multi-millionaire (who'd built his fortune in the construction business and loathed suits.)

I similarly met a barely literate, white Russian immigrant who I'd originally assumed to be a Wall Street trader because his hand-made, tailored suit looked so beautiful. It had cost him pennies to buy in Moscow and he'd just looked after it. He made minimum wage.

So when somebody tells me that THIS person is privileged without necessarily knowing much about them except the color of their skin, I think that says far more about THEM than the person they're judging.

Which is one of the reasons that piece put my back up. That and the circumcision thing. And the fact whoever wrote it hadn't used a spell check (it's 'rational,' not 'ractional' for example.)

I want to know this fellow's tailor.....must be his friend. (Everything still works on the watch my back I'll watch yours buddy, buddy system in New Russia too). Moskow is now the most expensive and sophisticated city in Europe to live in, its also more expensive than Tokyo, NewYork and equal to Hong Kong. They are always putting that in the business section of our paper. I can see why a Russian would still leave Russia for a life of opportunity (although harder to get an education, etc in the US). I've also never met a barely literate Russian (in their own language,culture) because schooling and education is so important there.English is just starting to be taught in Russia, it wasn't for years because America was seen as a threat. Russians usually are literate in French and European languages .


Appearances are deceiving. I had the worst crush on a beautiful woman who is still my close friend, and I found out that at one time she was a man.

We try not to prejudge people, but we do. That biker looking dude in the supermarket could be a plastic surgeon, ya never know.

...and as for white priveledge in Hawaii, the cops tend to pull them over more, give haoles more jay walking tickets, etc. If your skin is browner, and your hair is black, and you can speak some Ilocano, the world opens up to you here.

You made a great point there - my acquaintance with this 'Russian' fellow was fleeting at best (a matter of minutes) and it's fair to say I'd been guilty of making assumptions about him after the fact as well as before it.

I say Russian - but I can't honestly say I 'knew' he was from Russia. He spoke very little English and spoke with a slavic language (or what sounded like one based on my time in Budapest.) He could have been Russian, eastern European or even from any of the countries with 'istan' at the end of them. I ASSUME.

I also assumed his suit was made in the same country simply because of the Cyrillic characters on the label on the inside of it, but it didn't say Moscow so it could have been made in Belgrade or Bulgaria for all I know.

You were absolutely right to call me on that, though - I'd made assumptions and had preconceptions even after I found out he wasn't a Wall Street banker. Kind of reinforces my point though - people who designate others as 'privileged' might be doing so unfairly.

The kind of privilege you are talking about not easy to see are largely class-based. Most kinds of privilege are those that *are* based on appearances. These include: whiteness, maleness, being cissexual or "passing", being heterosexual or "passing" as heterosexual, being middle class or upper class or "passing" as such.

Are there situations where some of those lines become blurred? Absolutely. But people are denied fair and equal treatment all the time based on how they are perceived. And while some people have the option to changing the way they dress, for example, a person of color can't opt to be white and a trans person relies on the humanity of others to treat them fairly no matter what their transition status is. These are situations in which privilege is non-negotiable.