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.
If
@innonimatu wants to make the explicit argument that he doesn't consider what JK Rowling has posted on her blog to be harmful, then he should make that argument. As such, he seems to keep avoiding saying that specifically, and instead keeps making arguments to theoretical concerns of censorship.
Notably, nobody's making her take down the blog post. As such, she's still not being censored. More on that next.
If Twitter kicked her off Twitter she'd be deplatformed from Twitter
And Twitter is a private platform and can do what they want with it. They're still not being
censored. It is not
censorship in the proper sense. Hence why we have "deplatformed" as a different phrase. Rowling can still write in mainstream publications. Rowling can still write on her blog. Rowling can still attend public forums. She is not being
censored in the theoretical event she gets banned from the most weakly-moderated social media site in existence. It is
very hard for people to get banned from Twitter if you're a known public figure.
I don't get why we're stacking up theoretical "censorship" that hasn't even
happened against the harm done to trans people by spreading anti-trans rhetoric.
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?
I've said this before but you
seriously need to do some basic research into trans rights in the UK. Even the basic principle of gender recognition is far more involved than just getting a doctor's note. There is a paper trail man, what more do you want? The idea that someone can waltz into a public toilet, assault someone, and claim that they were allowed in there is a common TERF argument (this is not a criticism of you at all - I'm saying where this has picked up mainstream traction).
I don't want to speak for trans folk as a cis person, but I have seen (so as anecdotal as you want to treat it) many accounts of trans people just suffering from dysphoria because (like Cloud pointed out) they don't have the resources to even begin any form of legal transition (or gender recognition). They suffer - personally. They don't waltz into the public toilet of their choice and risk getting assaulted for not looking like a "real" woman.
And people really can't tell a lot of the time. People
think they can tell. That's why this diatribe that Rowling promotes is so harmful to trans women, and in fact women in general! It's upholding harassment of women to purportedly "prove" that they're a woman!
The entire TERF viewpoint is contrived, furthermore, because it's never about stopping women entering a man's space. It's always about allegedly-male abusers invading women's spaces. It's not about equality. It's about discriminating against trans people, and trans women in particular.