[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[innonimatu]

You didn't even answer the question, disappointingly. It's not a question of "might cause harm". Dehumanising trans women causes them harm. Dehumanising anybody causes them harm. Nevermind segregating them in terms of legal protections, it comes with a whole host of cultural baggage. It causes harm. I asked you for an argument as to it not causing harm; for you to provide some kind of counterargument. Anything, really.

The point of you or anyone insisting that it causes harm is that it should be eradicated. Hence, censored. It is a call for censure. Once the principle that speech by itself causes harm and should be banned is accepted, you've given up on free speech. You've made censure normal. And that in my view is a huge danger. Remember, free speech is also what protests LGBT marches, LGBT speech. It was under the protection of that fundamental right that other rights could be argued and campaigned for in the first place!
It goes both ways. People are playing with fire here. Criticize others, call them dumb reactionary, whatever. But my advice is: do not jump in the bandwagon of those invoking "harm" from speech. Because that invocation is always a strategy for archiving censorship. It's the sole logical consequence of making that argument. Even if some people jumping on that bandwagon don't understand it at the time.

Sometimes - few times I think, but sometimes - good intentions pave the path to hell. This "instigation to censorship" is a very dangerous path that has become fashionable of late.

 

[Crezth]

It's quite frankly unbelievable that your primary objection in this thread is that trans people wanting people to stop dehumanizing them are calling for "censorship." When you're at the bars and you're holding forth about some arcane minutia and your mates go "shut up I'm trying to watch the game" do you think that's censorship?

Like trans people are regularly murdered for being trans and we have to be careful we don't censor known multi-millionaire J.K. Rowling. Incredible.

 

[Gorbles]

The point of you or anyone insisting that it causes harm is that it should be eradicated. Hence, censored. It is a call for censure. Once the principle that speech by itself causes harm and should be banned is accepted, you've given up on free speech. You've made censure normal. And that in my view is a huge danger. Remember, free speech is also what protests LGBT marches, LGBT speech. It was under the protection of that fundamental right that other rights could be argued and campaigned for in the first place!
It goes both ways. People are playing with fire here. Criticize others, call them dumb reactionary, whatever. But my advice is: do not jump in the bandwagon of those invoking "harm" from speech. Because that invocation is always a strategy for archiving censorship. It's the sole logical consequence of making that argument. Even if some people jumping on that bandwagon don't understand it at the time.

Sometimes - few times I think, but sometimes - good intentions pave the path to hell. This "instigation to censorship" is a very dangerous path that has become fashionable of late.

Refusing to admit peoples' basic humanity is also a form of censure.

Also, notably, nobody has censored Rowling. One of the major points I'm making that you keep failing to respond to is that Rowling has actually used censorship to further uncritical dissemination of her transphobic beliefs.

I'm giving you every benefit of the doubt here, but you're not even being consistent in your opposition to censorship (bearing in mind the one form of censorship you are complaining about is a theoretical slippery-slope where you literally invoke the cliche of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"). Why? Why does Rowling's censorship of a free and fair debate matter less than the theoretical censorship of her opinions (which are also getting published in mainstream newspapers).

You say it goes both ways, but your argument only works in Rowling's favour.

 

[Lexicus]

Just pointing out censure and censor are two different words. And in this context it might be easy to confuse the two.

cen·sure
/ˈsen(t)SHər/

verb

1. express severe disapproval of (someone or something), especially in a formal statement.
   "a judge was censured in 1983 for a variety of types of injudicious conduct"
   
   Similar:
   condemn
   

noun

1. the expression of formal disapproval.
   "angry delegates offered a resolution of censure against the offenders"

cen·sor
/ˈsensər/

noun

1. an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

verb

1. examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
   "my mail was being censored"

 

[Gorbles]

Whups, I meant censor. That's what I get for going along with what was written in the post I was responding to. It's late.

I really hope inno meant that too, unless he's arguing against people having a disapproving opinion of others

 

[innonimatu]

My mistake also, I mean censor.

I don't know how Twitter works but assume everyone has an account there and posts those small messages, either as comments to others or standalone? From context it looks like she barred comments on her own comments? But not blocked other people there from talking about her and those comments, or did she?

 

[Gorbles]

My mistake also, I mean censor.

I don't know how Twitter works but assume everyone has an account there and posts those small messages, either as comments to others or standalone? From context it looks like she barred comments on her own comments? But not blocked other people there from talking about her and those comments, or did she?

It's not possible to block everyone from talking about you across the entire platform. That said, the "prevent all replies on a specific tweet" is a very new development by the platform and this is one of the most public uses of it to date (to prevent anyone from correcting her by tweet replies). Tweet replies are generally how most constructive replies are allowed - quoted tweets (literally embedding a tweet as a quote) are a generally badly-managed implementation (by Twitter) and culturally (on social media as a platform) can come with negative context.

But also, by that measure, she is not being censored either. People being mad with her, people telling her her opinion is harmful . . . none of this is censorship. Her free speech is not being impeded when people gather around and tell her she's wrong.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you are a celebrity you really shouldn't be replying to non-celebrities. There is only one way a meaningful development can happen: the non-celebrity gets noticed.
And usually you don't get noticed by saying "Of course, Socrates".

 

[Truthy]

But also, by that measure, she is not being censored either. People being mad with her, people telling her her opinion is harmful . . . none of this is censorship. Her free speech is not being impeded when people gather around and tell her she's wrong.

Yes, but what Inno is objecting to is the insistence that her speech act is harmful, not just that she's wrong. I think his argument was that that's an implicit call for censorship, so as to stop the presumed imminent harms of her speaking. If Twitter did step in and censor her (e.g., ban her), quite a lot of people would rally to Twitter's defense on the grounds that she was engaging in harmful hate speech, and so Twitter was justified in deplatforming her.

 

[Crezth]

Can a celebrated multi-millionaire author with books being actively published ever become deplatformed?

 

[Truthy]

If Twitter kicked her off Twitter she'd be deplatformed from Twitter

 

[zxcvbob]

What disturbs me is the adoption of right-wing, Christian fundamentalist talking points in order to counter and attack transpeople. It's the same "cisman in a dress wants to enter women's space to rape them, so therefor we must ban all transwomen" and it's a tired pathetic argument couched in bigotry.

I assume you want a discussion rather than just an echo chamber. How does someone making policy distinguish between cisman rapist wearing a dress to enter women's spaces to prey on them and transwoman? How do the women in those spaces tell the difference?

 

[Arwon]

I assume you want a discussion rather than just an echo chamber. How does someone making policy distinguish between cisman rapist wearing a dress to enter women's spaces to prey on them and transwoman? How do the women in those spaces tell the difference?

Start by not being incredibly awful at preventing and responding to serial assault in general hey.

Rapists don't need to "wear dresses" to commit and get away with rape. This is a demented figment.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hmmm. "Get away with" isn't an essential part of the concern. Even with rapid punishment, the damage is done.

But there is a good question about how to distinguish the two scenarios. Like, is a doctor's note appropriate? Sufficient?

 

[duckstab]

The whole "cross dressing rapist in the bathroom" scenario has always seemed highly contrived to me.

In my experience, it's hard to confuse a trans woman with a cross-dressing man. To be sure, there's a spectrum. Physically, they may be at different phases of their transition and may have come from very different starting points. Some may have had less apparent male secondary characteristics to begin with. Those secondary characteristics are likely to become less obvious over time because of hormonal and sometimes surgical interventions. Behaviorally, a trans woman will almost certainly have different mannerisms, body language, and affect from a cis-gendered man in female clothing. I think this would be especially obvious if a cross-dressed sexual predator were to enter a bathroom of the opposite sex.

 

[Arwon]

But there is a good question about how to distinguish the two scenarios.

What two scenarios?

 

[Crezth]

If Twitter kicked her off Twitter she'd be deplatformed from Twitter

A privately owned website. She has her own websites. Hell, she could buy a bunch of websites if she really wanted.

 

[Arwon]

You can't deplatform someone who owns a castle, that's just the rules

 

[Crezth]

Indeed, Rowling's wealth and status is the only reason anyone is concerned about her being deplatformed.

 

[Truthy]

A privately owned website. She has her own websites. Hell, she could buy a bunch of websites if she really wanted.

You can buy a domain for like 10 bucks. I bet she could afford at least 20 of those if she really wanted