[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[NinjaCow64]

I don't respect what they choose in that matter. I still don't think criminalizing wrongthink or ignorant opinions is a path a free country should trod, however. That path erodes said freedom. If it gets to the point of bullying/harassment rather than a one-off thing it becomes a different matter and starts to fall under harassment/bullying.

We've gone over this already. No country in the world protects all forms of speech, not even in the United States. If you think that there is a slippery slope then the entire world is slipping down it already and nothing will stop that. If "wrongthink" = "advocating for the marginalisation or extermination of minorities" then "wrongthink" should absolutely be suppressed. A straight line can be drawn between hatespeech and action designed to marginalise and destroy minorities. It absolutely should not be allowed.

No western state tells transpeople they don't exist, to my knowledge. Feel free to correct me on that if that is codified legally anywhere...maybe some in Eastern Europe or Middle Eastern countries I would believe or even expect it. I don't think it's an accident that these types of places don't have the same rigorous standards of free speech as the US though...

LGBT children are regularly forced into conversion therapy conducted by church groups and/or sent to camps that use unscientific torture (including extreme social pressure, corporal punishment, electroshock therapy and "corrective" rape) to try and "cure" people of their homosexuality or transgender status in the United States and the west. Many parts of the United States and the western world it is trivially easy to get around local laws designed to prevent this transporting children to a part of the United States where it is legal. Many of these camps do employ illegal practices, but when they get caught they often get a slap on the wrist and are allowed to operate under a new name. The fact that the majority of the western world turns a blind eye to these terrible actions is fundamentally disgusting and is little better than if it was done on behalf of the state.

The removal of laws that criminalised homosexuality in the west (and the world) was a long and arduous process that continued well into latter parts of the 20th Century and the early 21st Century. These laws were often used against transpeople as well. Homosexuals imprisoned in concentration camps by the Nazis were quite literally marched back to prison after they were released by the Western Allied Forces. There were mass arrests well into the 20th Century, maybe even 21st Century. Progress has only been recent. Lawrence vs Texas, which fully rendered anti-homosexuality laws unconstitutional in the United States, only happened in 2004 and there are still States in the United States that have anti-homosexuality and police officers who (occasionally) enforce, blatantly disregarding the courts. This is your United States, with your "rigorous free speech" laws.

There are times I worry that this wave of tolerance towards LGBT people will be reversed at some point. There are many rich and powerful people in the west (and the rest of the world) who would love nothing more than to see LGBT people imprisoned and destroyed. Our dystopian nightmare is still within people's living memory. Your dystopian nightmare ushered in by an overly broad hate speech law has never existed and never well.

 

[NinjaCow64]

As an aside (that is closer to the topic of the thread than many of my other posts lol), I find it deeply amusing that many of the people supporting Rowling were the same types of people who would have accused her books of promoting witchcraft merely twenty years ago. Oh how time flies!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I believe that b) is extremely misguided at best.

I want to point out that while I'm not intending to ignore your arguments, we have a fundamental disagreement about this that is core to much of the disagreement between us in the context of this thread. Since I'd need to argue general theory surrounding this in more detail to support points I make in this thread, I think it's better served if I create a separate RD with that as the specific topic for debate, rather than extending it here. I'll do that at some point, but I want to consider how I create it/scope/etc first.

 

[Kyriakos]

Jesus. Why do you guys love conflating abused people and their abusers?

Not sure if you even honestly thought I was talking about using namecalling against an abuser. This just isn't serious.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I want to point out that while I'm not intending to ignore your arguments, we have a fundamental disagreement about this that is core to much of the disagreement between us in the context of this thread. Since I'd need to argue general theory surrounding this in more detail to support points I make in this thread, I think it's better served if I create a separate RD with that as the specific topic for debate, rather than extending it here. I'll do that at some point, but I want to consider how I create it/scope/etc first.

Okay. Make sure to tag me in said thread’s OP, I don’t go in OT very often.

 

[NovaKart]

On twitter I’ve seen some rather obscure genders like neutrois, demi-vapor, demismoke, hydrogender, pyrogender and genderflora. I haven’t seen anyone claim to be those genders but I have come across agender.

 

[Crezth]

Not sure if you even honestly thought I was talking about using namecalling against an abuser. This just isn't serious.

My point is that transpeople endure hate on a daily basis. I’m not sure why focusing on that, or even believing it’s a worse form of harassment than some other groups get, translates to hate. At worst it’s indulging a little self-pity, but hate? Where do you get off calling trans people focusing on trans issues hate against non-trans issues?

And I know you’re going to say “well they said non-trans issues don’t matter” - can it. This is a thread about trans issues. Trans people are allowed to focus on trans issues without being accused of hating non-trans issues.

As a matter of fact bullying people for their traits is generally a form of discrimination that can get you let off your job. I see no reason at minimum why deadnaming trans people in the same harassment context shouldn’t also be a fireable.

On twitter I’ve seen some rather obscure genders like neutrois, demi-vapor, demismoke, hydrogender, pyrogender and genderflora. I haven’t seen anyone claim to be those genders but I have come across agender.

A lot of those are Nazi trolls trying to confuse people. It’s a propaganda campaign to make transgender people look ridiculous.

 

[NovaKart]

Neutrois at least seems to be something people are actually identifying as.

 

[Kyriakos]

My point is that transpeople endure hate on a daily basis. I’m not sure why focusing on that, or even believing it’s a worse form of harassment than some other groups get, translates to hate. At worst it’s indulging a little self-pity, but hate? Where do you get off calling trans people focusing on trans issues hate against non-trans issues?

I never did. You utterly misread me. What I said is that it is not based on logic to ask that subtype X of something has to be outlawed, but subtype Y is not worthy of that. It is based on sentiment. Not meaning to sound like that clown, tree-Shapiro, but some things aren't realistically countable and thus cannot be the basis of arguing for a law. Now, I am fine with deadnaming being outlawed, but I certainly don't think there is a logical basis for it to be - I just agree with the sentiment, but I also would agree with other namecalling being banned if possible.

 

[Seon]

Well sure, other forms of bullying that cause death should be banned when possible, but if you agree that we should be cautious about using the hands of the state—deadnaming and transphobia are very very specific thing that causes observable damage to a large group of people, and we can do a lot of good now without much of a risk of collateral damage by passing Federal-level legislation to ease name changes or taking steps to prevent someone from being deadnamed.

This will not solve transphobia but it will push transphobes deeper underground or without legal means to oppress transpeople.

 

[Crezth]

I never did. You utterly misread me. What I said is that it is not based on logic to ask that subtype X of something has to be outlawed, but subtype Y is not worthy of that. It is based on sentiment. Not meaning to sound like that clown, tree-Shapiro, but some things aren't realistically countable and thus cannot be the basis of arguing for a law. Now, I am fine with deadnaming being outlawed, but I certainly don't think there is a logical basis for it to be - I just agree with the sentiment, but I also would agree with other namecalling being banned if possible.

Let me attempt to be more generous in parsing your arguments.

1. What is your point about only quantitative data and not qualitative can be used to argue for law? That seems clearly untrue.

2. dead naming and non-trans targeted harassment are both bad. I mean... yeah. Targeted harassment is bad. Speaking from personal experience, deadnaming seems to be taken less seriously than mocking people’s physical characteristics. In fact I’m not familiar with cases where deadnaming or misgendering qualifies as harassment but I’m familiar with plenty of cases where mocking someone’s nose, weight, height, complexion, and hell, even temperament, became the grounds for a harassment suit or corrective action by a company HR.

This isn’t the same as criminalizing hate speech but honestly the free speech trolls dragged us there. Nobody had time to point out there is a very modest basis for protecting trans people in established harassment law.

As per people pointing out deadnaming is “worse,” even as a matter of opinion, I think that’s a fair judgment, not least of all because deadnaming is taken the least seriously of virtually every hypothetical alternate criteria that’s been brought up.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think this is just in bad faith.

Obviously anything can be used to make an argument, and what is accepted as legal basis depends on the specifics of a country's legal system. This is a forum, not the senate house, and "logical" was specifically used in juxtaposition to sentimental.

 

[Crezth]

Come now, all logic is informed by sentiment.

 

[JohannaK]

Neutrois at least seems to be something people are actually identifying as.

Yesh it is. I am not particularly sure what the difference between that and agender is, if there is one, but I have seen it.

There's a boatload of terms that have little use beyond self-identification. There's some particularly that I dont like because they are so similar to others all they do is confuse the matter, but I'm not gonna go around telling people what to call themselves.

Ultimately, gender and sex and sexuality are spectrums, much like visible light. We've gone around and put up dozens or hundreds of little names for tiny fractions of this spectrum, and now that's what's happening to the gender spectrum. Some of these are as distinct as green and magenta, and some are as alike as teal and cyan, but as much as the latter might seem confusing, it is worth it if it allows someone to identify themselves positively, rather than in opposition to the existing binary.

 

[innonimatu]

This will not solve transphobia but it will push transphobes deeper underground or without legal means to oppress transpeople.

Or it will piss them off seriously, make them organize politically, take power, and classify transpeople as mentally diseased. It's not as it that is unthinkable. Again: you're playing with fire. You're assuming that current media faithfully represents the political leanings of a majority, and that those will remain in place. Two assumptions that I'm quire sure are wrong in most western countries.

You're throwing way an easily defensible position: "universal freedom to live as one wishes, to believe what one wishes, to say and claim what one wishes", one where you have plenty of allies.
For a narrow group interest positions: legal classifications and protections for specific concerts of a very small subgroup of the population.
This is suicidal: when the winds of political trends turn you stand alone defending that position. The fact that is is enshrined in law will be meaningless: laws get changed. Your only protection against that is having a large majority always interested in maintain those laws in place. Common cause around universally-applicable laws that everyone sees as personally important.

A real life example: freedom of speech can be a protection against a government wanting to "ban LGBT propaganda". A larger group of people will oppose such a move, delay or water it down even if they have no particular sympathy for what is banned, because it is an attack on freedom of expression.
But if you have demolished freedom of expression as a principle already, punched holes in it, can you then expect support? A government seeking to ban "LGBT propaganda" will point out the hypocrisy. The liberals who would rally for freedom of expression will remember and care less, or even feel some schadenfreude. This crap is happening already in the world! How can you be so bloody blind?

 

[Seon]

You are making an assumption, based on no evidence that

1. That won’t happen anyways
2. There is a position to take that will enable you to hold ground in political world in permanence.

These are both not only empirically incorrect, accepting 2. As true would necessarily involve acknowledging that our world today is a world in which universal freedom is reality.

You must acknowledge that while universal freedom is the ideal, it will never become a reality so long as minorities are unfairly treated and preyed upon. If we do not protect the minorities now, they will have no cause to consider that universal freedom and protection can benefit them as well. Solidarity and universality has always been a two way street.

That laws get changed is no reason not to change the laws now. Change is the only single constant in our observable reality. There is no point to be afraid of change. What is the rational explanation for why maintenance of course is better than change of law? What is the rational explanation for why you believe that allies will automatically abandon the trans and black community’s fight for equal rights and protection from predation by transphobes and racists?

You are operating under the assumption, basically, that tribalism is eternal and is an unresolvable phenomenon. However, as we have observed that political opinions of groups are capable of change and being shaped by the discourse, we will never know how exactly the political winds blow unless we make the attempt to change the discourse. More people, as it turns out, believe you have a case when you actually bother to make one.

This will, of course, generate blowback, but this has always been the case for any attempt at change in the past and should not be discouraging.

 

[Seon]

As I have repeatedly stated in another thread, pro-LGBT statements are not antithetical to free speech in the same way that transphobic remarks are.

You are making an incorrect and irrational assumption that these two things are equivalent. One is in support of a group. Another seeks to chill debate by intimidation of the minority, and is thus antithetical to free speech.

Freedom of speech is thus furthered by banning of transphobic remarks. Banning of “pro-LGBT propaganda” would be an attempt to chill the expression of the minority and thus be an attack on our universal rights to freedom of speech.

I accept no attack against me of being hypocritical. My conclusions are rationally founded and discovered.

 

[Crezth]

Or it will piss them off seriously, make them organize politically, take power, and classify transpeople as mentally diseased.

You realize this was the situation until transpeople stood up for themselves?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Freedom of speech is thus furthered by banning of transphobic remarks.

You don't produce freedom by constraining options. Even if you manage to make a valid case for constraining freedom, it still doesn't make things more free.

People are not free to murder. Society broadly agrees this is a good thing. That agreement is less evident with other things, and constraining speech because people don't like it or because it can cause harm if individuals choose to read it is an entirely different standard.

So no, even if we agree that banning transphobic remarks is worth it (far from there yet), it is necessarily false that doing so furthers freedom of speech.

 

[Seon]

Being able to speak what we wish is a positive freedom. Hate speech threatens this positive freedom of others through intimidation. Hate speech laws restrict this ability to threaten the positive freedom of others. Thus, freedom of speech is furthered.

This statement is, as far as I can determine, logically consistent, and is the basis for which hate speech and hate crime laws exist.

You seem to be under the impression that both are arbitrary things. I reject it completely and have offered my counterargument based on my reasoning. You are not offering any rational counterargument.

At no point did I attempt to constrain freedom, only stop another’s attempt at constraining freedom.