[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[TheMeInTeam]

1. Transpeople find misgendering and deadnaming to be harmful and offensive but yet I have a feeling you'd disagree with the transcommunity labeling that hate speech.

Many things can be said that are harmful and offensive. Generic bullying has driven people to suicide. What is viable to label as "hate speech" depends on what the legal consequences are for "hate speech".

I am against discriminatory practices, however, and that includes giving any set of people extra legal privileges or protections.

2. White mens opinions on matters are over represented, both in terms of topic engagement and media. There is no derth of white mens opinions, nor are they traditionally discounted or dismissed. Transpeoples opinions however are a different matter.

You're making a statement of fact, but have not demonstrated said fact. What constitutes "over representation"? There are a lot more cis white men (and men in general) than transpeople by a wide margin. By default, this suggests that a large percentage of opinions that turn up in open forums will be from those larger populations.

"Traditional" or not, when opinions are dismissed that reasonably gets pushback. In a forum with open discussion, dismissing opinions/discussion is a good way to get one's own ignored or minimized. It's not a tactic that typically gets someone using it what they want, regardless of context. Even in historical examples where talks failed and people resorted to violence/open wars, it still wasn't a good idea to prep the enemy in advance and antagonize people who might have either sat out or joined...instead adding them as additional enemies. The goal is to win, for whatever one defines as winning.

3. Report it then. You don't seem to be too offended or to take much issue with people coming into this forum to spread hate and bile against transpeople or black people or gay people yet you're awfully fragile when it comes to an image that directs a message you disagree with at you, which leads me to believe you only care when you're impacted.

You're making false claims about my practices.

Though it's a little silly to respond "no u" when the caution is against policy that will make all of our lives worse, not just mine. If you want to improve the position of transpeople in the US, it's probably not a good idea to push to adopt practices/policies that have lead to various nations throughout history minimizing or brutalizing them more commonly and openly. If you think that, after such laws get passed, transpeople (or any small minority group) will enjoy greater rights long-term as < 1% of the voting block you're in for a rude awakening. That's the kind of policy that makes nations more like China rather than less.

It's very easy to not reply, you know. Anything you, or I, or anybody attempts in this discuss we do in complete control of our actions. The "insult" is directed at actions taken, not something that we have no control over.

The implication of that picture is that it is not only "actions", but also the person's race that is relevant to the conversation. If that weren't the implication, it wouldn't be specified.

f you want to quibble over the race-related association to such behaviour, then that's a separate argument. Unfortunately you seem steadfast in taking anything that could be remotely applicable to you as an "ad hominem", and invoking it as such

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ad-hominem --> when you start discussing someone's character rather than their arguments, that's literally ad hominem by definition.

This has been a long-term thing, yeah? The last time we all "debated" trans rights, there was a lot of theoretical pontificating on the "alleged" harm done to trans people, but as soon as someone pointed out a stereotype that negatively affected you (or others), all hell broke loose.

And as such, this is an (also inaccurate) example of ad hominem. Which again, is something that the forum guidelines state is not appropriate for RD discussion.

I remind you that this RD topic is about JKR's tweets and their impact on transpeople, not "TheMeInTeam". The other thread you reference wasn't about me either.

In the meantime, did you say anything about:

1. Why the paradox of intolerance is applicable to his argument?
2. The distinction of acceptance vs tolerance?
3. Demonstrated where innonimatu asserted the criticism of JKR should itself be suppressed, rather than simply arguing it?
4. What counts as "preaching violence against minorities", or how that ties into JKR?

No, you did not. Instead, you have chosen to argue about me specifically rather than the content of what was actually written here. Again. I am not relevant to this discussion, but my arguments might be. If they are or aren't, that would be the useful avenue to discuss.

BTW it is also "very easy" for you to "not reply". Or for this thread not to be made. That's a destructive standard/statement to take if we're actually intending for decent discussion here. Though when it comes to "not doing it", posts like 335 don't seem to have any particular relevance to JKR, nor to specifically address anything people in the thread have actually said...

If only there were some kind of a difference between US imperialism and cancelling JK Rowling. Ah, well.

Wat

She than gets upset if anyone criticises what she says.

She can get upset all she wants, and people can still criticize her all the same.

 

[NinjaCow64]

@innonimatu @TheMeInTeam No society in human history has tolerated unlimited free speech. Not even the United States, who arrests people for libel, slander, treason and related crimes.

Perhaps you are Anarcho-Capitalists who genuinely believe that all speech should be tolerated, including libel and slander. I don’t know you well enough to know. I think that mindset is very stupid for reasons I can elaborate on if needed.

But if you somehow think that libel, slander and treason is somehow “different” to political speech and ought to be policed, then you too tolerate and advocate for a society where some speech is policed. So then the question remains what speech you believe ought to be policed and what speech ought to be tolerated by society.

So the onus is on you to explain why JK Rowling's bigotry, which is essentially libel and slander against an entire minority group as it is filled with hateful lies intended to demean this group, should be protected speech. Your answer to this question will betray your true thoughts and feelings on this issue.

 

[Robo-Star]

I am against discriminatory practices, however, and that includes giving any set of people extra legal privileges or protections.

Are you for desegregation in prisons?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Perhaps you are Anarcho-Capitalists who genuinely believe that all speech should be tolerated, including libel and slander.

I have already gone on record saying otherwise in this thread.

So then the question remains what speech you believe ought to be policed and what speech ought to be tolerated by society.

I asked this question earlier in the thread. I don't have a wholistic answer pictured. I do personally doubt it's a good idea to restrict general opinions about the state of reality, regardless of whether they are accurate.

So the onus is on you to explain why JK Rowling's bigotry, which is essentially libel and slander against an entire minority group as it is filled with hateful lies intended to demean this group, should be protected speech.

Libel has strict standards, and in asserting it the burden of proof is on the person or people doing so. It's not enough to demonstrate that someone is being an ***. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/who-can-sue-defamation

Are you for desegregation in prisons?

I'm too ignorant of the issue and especially its tradeoffs to have a strong opinion of it. A quick glance suggests there are different kinds of segregation in prison. Given the context here, I'm guessing you mean purely racial segregation? If we're really about equality that probably shouldn't be happening. Segregating based on crimes committed or in-prison conduct are different, however...as are the ethical considerations when the "segregation" = "solitary".

So to answer this properly I'd need to know specifically what you're asking, and a lot of surrounding context to it.

Edit: what you quoted was in context of another discussion. I meant discrimination based on factors people can't control. Obviously I wouldn't agree that people who commit homicide should be treated similarly to average citizens.

 

[Robo-Star]

Given the context here, I'm guessing you mean purely racial segregation?

Gender segregration.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Gender segregration.

That's even harder. Thumbing through some articles, I was surprised to read that women commit sexual assault more frequently than men in prison https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438589/. i'd have not anticipated that, which makes me seriously question what else I'd not correctly anticipate regarding prison behaviors. Also apparently segregation based on gender is > 100 years old, so there's not a lot of modern basis for the practice.

If we are doing it at all (and you could make a case for it in terms of medical/needs or cost efficiency, not sure if those would be supported by actual data or not though), I would advocate putting transpeople in the environment they identify as the obvious (and apparently not practiced) default.

US prison system in general, incarceration rate of US citizens compared to elsewhere in the world, and how violence is accepted as a fact of life (with an apparent lack of consequences in many cases) all strike me as serious issues too.

 

[REDY]

That's even harder. Thumbing through some articles, I was surprised to read that women commit sexual assault more frequently than men in prison https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438589/.

How is it even physically possible?

 

[NinjaCow64]

Libel has strict standards, and in asserting it the burden of proof is on the person or people doing so. It's not enough to demonstrate that someone is being an ***. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/who-can-sue-defamation

True, Rowling's post probably doesn't meet that strict legal definition. They are, however, heinous lies that serve no purpose other than to spread panic and justify discrimination against a minority that already cops a large degree of crap.

I asked this question earlier in the thread. I don't have a wholistic answer pictured. I do personally doubt it's a good idea to restrict general opinions about the state of reality, regardless of whether they are accurate.

Aren't libel, slander, defamation et al an opinion about the state of reality? Why should that be illegal and something like what Rowling posted that does the same thing en masse be tolerated? And why should we not restrict general opinions about the state of reality when said general opinions are used to vilify marginalised members of society and promote even greater mistreatment of them?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

True, Rowling's post probably doesn't meet that strict legal definition. They are, however, heinous lies that serve no purpose other than to spread panic and justify discrimination against a minority that already cops a large degree of crap.

I don't think JKR would agree with your assessment of her intent or the consequences. And even if she's wrong, it's not so obvious that she knows she's wrong and is making these posts as an intentionally insidious act.

This is why we need to separate someone being a jerk from someone committing libel. And saying that isn't a defense of them being jerks.

How is it even physically possible?

People aren't kept in solo cells all the time.

Aren't libel, slander, defamation et al an opinion about the state of reality?

Yes, but they are not general. To clarify what I mean:

"Men are more likely to commit violent crimes than women" is a generalized statement (with statistical backing in this case from government data). "That person specifically is a rapist" is not a general statement about reality.

And why should we not restrict general opinions about the state of reality when said general opinions are used to vilify marginalised members of society and promote even greater mistreatment of them?

Because laws that restrict this can trivially be used to silence evidence based data or suppress evidence outright. As a perverse example, one could claim my example above "promotes mistreatment of men, especially black men" and summarily punish people for citing crime statistics that men commit violent acts more frequently than women.

Or something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

Or more relevant, something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_China --> Have fun criticizing the CCP for its treatment of LGBT, if you live in China. Hope you have a good VPN.

Policy proposed by another poster above would allow James Damore to have been jailed, which would be completely asinine.

Now, picture US policy that allows suppression of generalized statements like this. The government, for whatever reason, doubles down that transpeople shouldn't be placed based on their preferred gender in prison, or that there is no basis for them to receive certain medical procedures. Since we now have precedent that general speech can be treated as libel, it would be a valid legal case to take transpeople to court for their own opinions on other transpeople, on the basis that these generalized statements are "harmful". Now that dissenting voices are deemed harmful, they can be silenced completely. No need for burdensome details like whether the statements by those in power are accurate, or any causal link of direct harm like current libel laws!

That would be a drop in the bucket. The prevailing motivation for such practices would be for the people in power to keep power. Transpeople would be one of many pawns in that game, and not a well-considered one given their small % of population. Disagreeing with a particular party's narrative could easily be expanded as "harmful to X marginalized population" and thus silenced. Do you trust Trump to simply choose not to do this? Even if you do, do you also trust every future president without exception?

People already try this from time to time in the US, but for the time being free speech still mostly prevails. JKR's BS is a tax we pay for that if we choose to read it, but the alternative is far more costly. To all of us.

 

[Kyriakos]

Sigh.
I am always unpleasantly surprised by famous people thinking it is a good idea to talk about political issues, and then they get sucked into a massive trolling war they cannot possibly win.
Happened with worse people, tbh, like that Dawkins guy. Just cause you are great in your own field (biology for him), doesn't mean what you say on other fields (eg philosophy or theology) won't be trash.

 

[Yeekim]

True, Rowling's post probably doesn't meet that strict legal definition. They are, however, heinous lies that serve no purpose other than to spread panic and justify discrimination against a minority that already cops a large degree of crap.

I was now finally sufficiently intrigued to go and read the entirety of the original post by Rowling that the OP linked to.
Which bits therein qualify as "heinous lies"?

 

[NinjaCow64]

I don't think JKR would agree with your assessment of her intent or the consequences. And even if she's wrong, it's not so obvious that she knows she's wrong and is making these posts as an intentionally insidious act.

This is why we need to separate someone being a jerk from someone committing libel. And saying that isn't a defense of them being jerks.

Maybe she doesn't realise she is wrong but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be judged on what she does wrong. And she is wrong, she constantly goes on about statistics that aren't cited and seem to be completely pulled from the ether. Surely if she had evidence for her odious opinions she would back them up. Her statements probably don't meet the legal definition of libel but they were incredibly jerkish and in a better society such a class of jerkhood would not be tolerated.

Yes, but they are not general. To clarify what I mean:

"Men are more likely to commit violent crimes than women" is a generalized statement (with statistical backing in this case from government data). "That person specifically is a rapist" is not a general statement about reality.

True.

Because laws that restrict this can trivially be used to silence evidence based data or suppress evidence outright. As a perverse example, one could claim my example above "promotes mistreatment of men, especially black men" and summarily punish people for citing crime statistics that men commit violent acts more frequently than women.

That isn't a valid argument against enacting laws like I am proposing, just an argument to be careful when writing the laws to ensure that they are not misused. I'm sure I could propose an absurd hypothetical where I get arrested for murder on trumped up charges, it wouldn't be a good argument against making murder legal.

Or something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

Mate, Falun Gong are a nasty cult that would be considered in the same breath as cults such as Scientology if they weren't a useful tool to demonise China with. Their leader Li Hongzhi believes in both racial segregation in the human world and the afterlife (yes you read that right). He also believes that mixed race people automatically go to hell if they aren't given a special permission slip by God. Don't believe me? Look at some choice quotes from the man himself:

The races in the world are not allowed to be mixed up. Now, the races are mixed up and it has brought about an extraordinarily serious problem. Once races are mixed up, one does not have a corresponding relationship with the higher levels, and he has lost the root. Mixed races have lost their roots, as if nobody in the paradise will take care of them. They belong to nowhere, and no places would accept them. Therefore, you find the place where the continents of Europe and Asia meet a desert in the past and a depopulated zone. When the transportation means were not advanced, it was difficult to pass through it. With the progress of modern means, all these are broken through. Thus, races have become increasingly mixed up, which can lead to serious consequences. Of course, I will not go into details. I'm just saying that the higher levels do not recognize such a human race.

Student: People of the white race are left over from the previous civilization. Then people of the yellow race and members of other races are…

Teacher: During the previous cycle of civilization the continental plates were different from those of today. But roughly speaking, people of the yellow race lived in the regions of South America and North America. The Native Americans who live there at present are classified as being of the yellow race. The people of the yellow race who lived in the place where China is now—the most central place [where they were] at that time was at Kazakhstan—after the Great Flood, they migrated to the region that is the great desert of Xinjiang. At that time it was a land of fertile soil. Later on they continually migrated eastward. Strictly speaking, Indians, Egyptians, Persians, the yellow race, the white race, and the black race are the six major races of the present Earth. All the other ones are mixed races.

In fact, no one knows that even though many people talk about believing in Buddhas or believing in gods, the truth is, if you aren’t someone from that particular god’s world he won’t save you whatsoever. I once made a statement that whether it’s Christianity or Catholicism, in their paradises there are no Eastern people. This is an absolute truth which man doesn’t understand. Yet Western religions went to the East with the Crusades, and the way they spread wasn’t good to begin with, since both Jesus and Yahweh prohibited their disciples from spreading the teachings eastward. It was to prevent the mixing of human races, but they didn’t understand this.

Sources: Sydney Lecture Los Angeles Lecture

They also promote bullfeathers pseudo-science medical nonsense, are virulently homophobic and also do a bunch of other awful cult stuff according to this one ex-member. Admittedly it is harder to find evidence for this stuff that isn't anecdotal but for cult nonsense it usually is hard to.

Now I don't agree with forced organ harvesting and all that. Just like I would not advocate for mandatory beheading of all people who choose to defecate on the street. But Falun Gong is a prime example of a belief system that should not be tolerated by a moral society.

Or more relevant, something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_China --> Have fun criticizing the CCP for its treatment of LGBT, if you live in China. Hope you have a good VPN.

I don't live in China lol. I also disagree with the Chinese Communist Party on many, many things, including its handling of LGBT rights.

Policy proposed by another poster above would allow James Damore to have been jailed, which would be completely asinine.

James Damore was that Google jerk who made a manifesto about how women couldn't succeed in tech because of [insert sexist psuedo-science here] right? I mean jail is probably excessive but he should face some sort of consequences for his stupid actions in a better society. Perhaps state mandated biology classes.

Now, picture US policy that allows suppression of generalized statements like this. The government, for whatever reason, doubles down that transpeople shouldn't be placed based on their preferred gender in prison, or that there is no basis for them to receive certain medical procedures. Since we now have precedent that general speech can be treated as libel, it would be a valid legal case to take transpeople to court for their own opinions on other transpeople, on the basis that these generalized statements are "harmful". Now that dissenting voices are deemed harmful, they can be silenced completely. No need for burdensome details like whether the statements by those in power are accurate, or any causal link of direct harm like current libel laws!

Well written anti-hate speech laws don't give governments the power to arbitrarily arrest people for saying things the government doesn't like. Many countries have laws that penalise generalised statements if they meet certain criteria. For instance Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Australia).

That would be a drop in the bucket. The prevailing motivation for such practices would be for the people in power to keep power. Transpeople would be one of many pawns in that game, and not a well-considered one given their small % of population. Disagreeing with a particular party's narrative could easily be expanded as "harmful to X marginalized population" and thus silenced. Do you trust Trump to simply choose not to do this? Even if you do, do you also trust every future president without exception?

I don't trust the U.S government with much of anything tbh. Ideally these changes would come after a large shift in how the U.S is governed. And don't think that laws or the Constitution will stop Presidents with ambition from ignoring them and doing whatever they want anyway.

People already try this from time to time in the US, but for the time being free speech still mostly prevails. JKR's BS is a tax we pay for that if we choose to read it, but the alternative is far more costly. To all of us.

But the U.S already suppresses Free Speech! Chelsea Manning spent yonks in prison and had to pay over a quarter of a million dollars to exercise her freedom to disagree with the government's actions. Edward Snowden had to flee the country for similar reasons. And the lesser known Reality Winner (yes that is her real name) is still in jail. And that doesn't account for the countless cases where the government isn't or is deniably involved in retaliation for exercising free speech like what happens to radical African-American political advocates all the bloody time.

No society truly allows unlimited free speech, not even the U.S. What I and others are proposing is not the "costly alternative" that doesn't exist because we are already living in it. What we are proposing is that maybe, maybe if the State is going to suppress speech anyway why doesn't it suppress speech that is harmful to extremely vulnerable minorities?

 

[NinjaCow64]

I was now finally sufficiently intrigued to go and read the entirety of the original post by Rowling that the OP linked to.
Which bits therein qualify as "heinous lies"?

I'm about to go to bed so I'll keep this brief but a few examples:

...although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria.

Absolute nonsense statistic that is not cited nor can I find the so-called "extensive research" that claims this. This sort of rhetoric is used to deny gender dysphoric teens supportive environments and access to both social and medical transition because "oh you'll likely grow out of it". This greatly increases the risk of them committing or attempting suicide and unlike Rowling I have evidence to back my claims.

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young [transmen] wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

The most common reasons that detransitioning transmen cite that they detransitoned was not because they regretted their transition, but because their families rejected them. This article debunks a lot of Rowling's claims about transmen and cites sources. This misinformation plays into the narrative that transmen are "manipulated" into transititoning and this rhetoric is used to deny transmen healthcare and transition which is bad for reasons we already went over.

There are plenty more examples of this that one can find in the article. Peppered around personal anecdotes and feelings are a bunch of claims that are backed by shonky evidence or often no evidence at all. These claims perpetuate dangerous myths (for example the whole "bathroom predator" moral panic) that are used to perpetuate narratives that translate to trans people being legislated against and physically attacked. It is for that reason I consider many of the things that Rowling writes in that blog post heinous lies.

I am potentially willing to go over this in more detail once I have a good night's sleep.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Many things can be said that are harmful and offensive. Generic bullying has driven people to suicide. What is viable to label as "hate speech" depends on what the legal consequences are for "hate speech".

Transpeople's suicidality rates decrease if society and people treat them as the gender they transition to, if it's explained to someone and they continue to deadname and misgender them, they do so knowing the consequences and should expect censure.

I am against discriminatory practices, however, and that includes giving any set of people extra legal privileges or protections

You genuinely scare and disturb me, despite history showing that protected classes of people exist for a reason, you continue to stick to your dogma.

You're making a statement of fact, but have not demonstrated said fact. What constitutes "over representation"? There are a lot more cis white men (and men in general) than transpeople by a wide margin. By default, this suggests that a large percentage of opinions that turn up in open forums will be from those larger populations.

And yet the conversation is still dominated by white cis men offline, online and in the media who feel their views are of equal worth to transpeoples, on the topic of being trans and the problems that come along side it.

"Traditional" or not, when opinions are dismissed that reasonably gets pushback. In a forum with open discussion, dismissing opinions/discussion is a good way to get one's own ignored or minimized. It's not a tactic that typically gets someone using it what they want, regardless of context. Even in historical examples where talks failed and people resorted to violence/open wars, it still wasn't a good idea to prep the enemy in advance and antagonize people who might have either sat out or joined...instead adding them as additional enemies. The goal is to win, for whatever one defines as winning.

Except people like you aren't allies or even neutral, you're enabling those that wish to discriminate against us and even when it's explained to you, you refuse to acknowledge or change.

Though it's a little silly to respond "no u" when the caution is against policy that will make all of our lives worse, not just mine. If you want to improve the position of transpeople in the US, it's probably not a good idea to push to adopt practices/policies that have lead to various nations throughout history minimizing or brutalizing them more commonly and openly. If you think that, after such laws get passed, transpeople (or any small minority group) will enjoy greater rights long-term as < 1% of the voting block you're in for a rude awakening. That's the kind of policy that makes nations more like China rather than less.

You're reaching so far here, that I'm worried you might damage your back.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Maybe she doesn't realise she is wrong but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be judged on what she does wrong.

I didn't say otherwise!

That isn't a valid argument against enacting laws like I am proposing, just an argument to be careful when writing the laws to ensure that they are not misused. I'm sure I could propose an absurd hypothetical where I get arrested for murder on trumped up charges, it wouldn't be a good argument against making murder legal.

Murder has objective standards that don't arbitrarily bias who is protected from it on paper, however. And even then it's not applied fairly in practice. Making a deliberately subjective and arbitrary law will not work better.

Mate, Falun Gong are a nasty cult that would be considered in the same breath as cults such as Scientology if they weren't a useful tool to demonise China with. Their leader Li Hongzhi believes in both racial segregation in the human world and the afterlife (yes you read that right). He also believes that mixed race people automatically go to hell if they aren't given a special permission slip by God. Don't believe me? Look at some choice quotes from the man himself:

And what did China do to them? Is that how we want to treat people with bad viewpoints? It seems you agree we do not below.

I don't live in China lol. I also disagree with the Chinese Communist Party on many, many things, including its handling of LGBT rights.

The problem is when the government you *do* live under happens to disagree with you on something...what can do as a result of that. Throwing wrongthink in jail takes us on that path.

James Damore was that Google jerk who made a manifesto about how women couldn't succeed in tech because of [insert sexist psuedo-science here] right?

That's a dishonest representation of the memo in question. Have you actually read it?

Well written anti-hate speech laws don't give governments the power to arbitrarily arrest people for saying things the government doesn't like. Many countries have laws that penalise generalised statements if they meet certain criteria. For instance Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Australia).

No.

A person could walk around wearing an "all lives matter" shirt. Government could easily claim that it is "reasonably likely" this is offensive anti-black symbolism. Even if that objectively isn't true, many people already claim that. Someone in the US was recently fired for answering that way when asked about it.

The Oakland "exercise noose" is another example where this could go awry.

I don't trust the U.S government with much of anything tbh. Ideally these changes would come after a large shift in how the U.S is governed. And don't think that laws or the Constitution will stop Presidents with ambition from ignoring them and doing whatever they want anyway.

There is a difference between illegal power seizure and freely operating against rights within the framework of the law. Both in terms of perception and in how difficult it is to bypass opposition to it.

But the U.S already suppresses Free Speech! Chelsea Manning spent yonks in prison and had to pay over a quarter of a million dollars to exercise her freedom to disagree with the government's actions. Edward Snowden had to flee the country for similar reasons. And the lesser known Reality Winner (yes that is her real name) is still in jail. And that doesn't account for the countless cases where the government isn't or is deniably involved in retaliation for exercising free speech like what happens to radical African-American political advocates all the bloody time.

I said "mostly" because there are exceptions and they're often not merited. That doesn't make policy that allows it to be done more frequently and with less controversy a good idea, however.

What we are proposing is that maybe, maybe if the State is going to suppress speech anyway why doesn't it suppress speech that is harmful to extremely vulnerable minorities?

So far, laws proposed and actually enforced have done so arbitrarily. If a given type of speech is actually dangerous enough to be harmful, why not enforce it generally?

Absolute nonsense statistic that is not cited nor can I find the so-called "extensive research" that claims this.

Here is an article in response to the original article making the claim:

https://gidreform.wordpress.com/201...hildhood-gender-identity-desistence-research/

Looks more like using an article inappropriately for confirmation bias than making something up entirely.

Transpeople's suicidality rates decrease if society and people treat them as the gender they transition to, if it's explained to someone and they continue to deadname and misgender them, they do so knowing the consequences and should expect censure.

That response does nothing to state why deadnaming should be treated differently from bullying, however. Would you agree that bullying in general is hate speech? Why should hate speech be treated differently?

You genuinely scare and disturb me, despite history showing that protected classes of people exist for a reason, you continue to stick to your dogma.

Equal before the law should not mean that some people are more equal than others. In practice people are not equal before the law, and that's bad. If someone is the victim of a crime, it should not matter whether they are part of a "protected class".

To frame the rationale you're using another way, consider this statement: "history has shown police are a protected class of people for a reason".

And yet the conversation is still dominated by white cis men offline, online and in the media who feel their views are of equal worth to transpeoples, on the topic of being trans and the problems that come along side it.

You neither demonstrated the fact you asserted nor answered my question with quoted response.

Except people like you aren't allies or even neutral, you're enabling those that wish to discriminate against us and even when it's explained to you, you refuse to acknowledge or change.

What specifically am I doing to "enable others"? Denouncing something, but disagreeing on precisely how bad something is and what policy should address does not have any clear causal link to "enabling", and predictably you've demonstrated no such link. You're making a false claim as a weak ad hominem rather than actually engaging in the discussion presented. That's annoying.

You're reaching so far here, that I'm worried you might damage your back.

Still not seeing coherent policy arguments that work as a better alternative though.

 

[Crezth]

Though it's a little silly to respond "no u" when the caution is against policy that will make all of our lives worse, not just mine. If you want to improve the position of transpeople in the US, it's probably not a good idea to push to adopt practices/policies that have lead to various nations throughout history minimizing or brutalizing them more commonly and openly. If you think that, after such laws get passed, transpeople (or any small minority group) will enjoy greater rights long-term as < 1% of the voting block you're in for a rude awakening. That's the kind of policy that makes nations more like China rather than less.

More like China, or more like the Federal Republic of Germany. This kind of screed ignores a long history of successfully suppressing hate speech in nations that aren't the evil communist dictatorships of your nightmares. Frankly there's no evidence that hate speech laws will worsen transpeople's lives, especially not as now you're speaking to a group that is already being killed for expressing opinions as well as for existing. It's also not true that, at present, speech is in such a good position where we're all endowed with a lot of freedom to use it. It's already heavily restricted and you can already be taken to jail for expressing yourself, given the nature of the expression.

So I'm not really seeing where the slippery slope is. You say it's at group libel, I say it's at arresting people for using company's trademarks. Since the latter is already true, which is to say, since your speech is already limited by the confines of your property, I can't see how hate speech is an unwelcome imposition.

And hate speech, as a legal concept, is no more arbitrary than the Genocide Convention:

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

[The punishable acts are defined as:]

(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

You might say, for example, isn't this arbitrary? Why only these groups are protected, and not any generic group like, for example, the Freemasons, or the Communists?

The reason is because these laws were drawn up from the consideration of the circumstance. Genocide had proven itself a crime distinct and above mere "crimes against humanity." It was widely recognized as a special evil, and deserved special attention under that consideration. This is also the root of laws against hate speech. Since group libel can and does contribute to group hatred, which is known to elicit pogroms and political racketeering and repression, and as these elements contribute decisively to the construction of genocidal regimes, it only seems reasonable to ban group libel for protected groups. There is no reason for someone to use their "free speech" to claim Jews killed Jesus, or transwomen are sexual predators, and indeed these acts should be recognized as hazardous to the public safety and threatening against civil society as they are.

I am well aware these arguments can be "turned against me" if, for example, someone decides having my opinions makes me illegal. But on the other hand, people incited to hatred can decide my existence should also be illegal. So it's a toss-up. It seems safer just to ban the spreading of hateful lies.

 

[Seon]

Generally speaking, “bullying” people for qualities they cannot control (being black or trans) would qualify under the law as being hate speech. If a black man should not be “bullied” by being called the N-word, a trans person should not be called by their deadname which they generally had no choice in being named so originally.

Protected classes exist precisely because people are not equal before the law nor society, not to inject inequality into the system. The intent of the law is to repair injustice caused by biases inherent in the system. The police should not be protected class, as not only do people make the active choice to be police (and can choose not to be one), but also because they are an advantaged and previleged class compared to their contemporaries.

You are making a purely theoretical argument about real world things as if they exist in vacuum. You are also making an assumption that protected classes and such are arbitrary decisions when, in fact, they are a response to real world flaws.

By refusing to see that these real world flaws exist and insisting upon tolerance towards these, you enable them to persist and continue to dominate our society as it has done so in the past.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

That response does nothing to state why deadnaming should be treated differently from bullying, however. Would you agree that bullying in general is hate speech? Why should hate speech be treated differently?

Hate speech leads to the death of people. It leads to their suffering, to increased attacks. If you want to die on the hill of defending hate speech then go ahead. Do it.

Equal before the law should not mean that some people are more equal than others. In practice people are not equal before the law, and that's bad. If someone is the victim of a crime, it should not matter whether they are part of a "protected class".

To frame the rationale you're using another way, consider this statement: "history has shown police are a protected class of people for a reason".

You're disengenuous as ****, I just want to let it be known that despite history showing that minorities are often the target of violence by both the majority and the police, @TheMeInTeam still wants to play his smarmy little games, because it's all hypothetical to him. It's a game, not real life to him which he leave and enter when he chooses, IF he chooses to.

@TheMeInTeam You are that person in the image i posted earlier and that is why you are sensitive to it.

What specifically am I doing to "enable others"? Denouncing something, but disagreeing on precisely how bad something is and what policy should address does not have any clear causal link to "enabling", and predictably you've demonstrated no such link. You're making a false claim as a weak ad hominem rather than actually engaging in the discussion presented. That's annoying

Nah man, it's a consistant pattern with you and all the other disengenuous free-speechers that come out to protect, defend and enable bigots when they stick their oar into a discussion in bad faith to tell us how wrong it is for others to criticize people for their vocal bigotry and how unfair it is. You've reduced it to a debate, in your mind, but I and others have to live with the consequences of it.

You defend the "right" of people to be bigoted but think somehow you can avoid the splashback from the consequences and pain it allows and enables, but you are wrong and you're no different than any other person sympathetic to a bad cause. If you defend the rights of bigots, regardless of context, regardless of reasons, you can't then claim your hands are 100% clean.

If you don't like it, don't do it, no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to run defense for transphobes, for JK Rowling, you're doing it yourself.

Moderator Action: This is an RD thread. Act accordingly. --LM

 

[TheMeInTeam]

More like China, or more like the Federal Republic of Germany. This kind of screed ignores a long history of successfully suppressing hate speech in nations that aren't the evil communist dictatorships of your nightmares. Frankly there's no evidence that hate speech laws will worsen transpeople's lives, especially not as now you're speaking to a group that is already being killed for expressing opinions.

When did we establish that again?

So I'm not really seeing where the slippery slope is. You say it's at group libel, I say it's at arresting people for using company's trademarks. Since the latter is already true, which is to say, since your speech is already limited by the confines of your property, I can't see how hate speech is an unwelcome imposition.

Trademarks have basis. What is the basis for treating hate speech differently from bullying/trolling?

And hate speech, as a legal concept, is no more arbitrary than the Genocide Convention:

That is factually untrue per what you pasted below making the statement though.

You might say, for example, isn't this arbitrary? Why only these groups are protected, and not any generic group like, for example, the Freemasons, or the Communists?

As it turns out, it actually is already illegal to kill, inflict serious bodily harm, etc on freemasons or baseball fans.

The reason is because these laws were drawn up from the consideration of the circumstance. Genocide had proven itself a crime distinct and above mere "crimes against humanity." It was widely recognized as a special evil, and deserved special attention under that consideration.

It is somewhat ethically bankrupt to assert that making a deliberate attempt to systematically wipe out all followers of the protestant faith is meaningfully worse than attempting to do the same with baseball fans. So why should protestants get "special attention" again?

This is also the root of laws against hate speech.

Doesn't seem to be a well-planted root!

Since group libel can and does contribute to group hatred, which is known to elicit pogroms and political racketeering and repression, and as these elements contribute decisively to the construction of genocidal regimes, it only seems reasonable to ban group libel for protected groups.

None of this follows. You didn't answer my question which was presented to Ninjacow and Cloud in different forms:

If a given type of speech is actually dangerous enough to be harmful, why not enforce it generally?

transwomen are sexual predators, and indeed these acts should be recognized as hazardous to the public safety and threatening against civil society as they are.

Some transwomen are sexual predators. Some men are sexual predators. Obviously not all of either group are sexual predators.

There is overwhelming cognitive dissonance in the notion that "transwomen are sexual predators" should be treated differently than "men are sexual predators".

But on the other hand, people incited to hatred can decide my existence should also be illegal. So it's a toss-up. It seems safer just to ban the spreading of hateful lies.

That hasn't happened and has no plausible evidence that it is a threat to happen though, so the notion that yanking freedom...including your own freedom...makes you "safer" is strange.

Generally speaking, “bullying” people for qualities they cannot control (being black or trans) would qualify under the law as being hate speech. If a black man should not be “bullied” by being called the N-word, a trans person should not be called by their deadname which they generally had no choice in being named so originally.

Doesn't matter whether it's factors the person can control in the context of bullying though. Or if it does, why should it?

Protected classes exist precisely because people are not equal before the law nor society, not to inject inequality into the system.

X = not X self-contradiction.

You are making a purely theoretical argument about real world things as if they exist in vacuum. You are also making an assumption that protected classes and such are arbitrary decisions when, in fact, they are a response to real world flaws.

In fact, they are themselves an example of discrimination in the literal sense, and the practices do meet the standards of "arbitrary".

By refusing to see that these real world flaws exist and insisting upon tolerance towards these, you enable them to persist and continue to dominate our society as it has done so in the past.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/enable

I'm aware of real world flaws. I'm arguing against incongruent rationale that advocates policy that makes things worse rather than better.

Hate speech leads to the death of people. It leads to their suffering, to increased attacks. If you want to die on the hill of defending hate speech then go ahead. Do it.

That response does nothing to state why deadnaming should be treated differently from bullying, however. Would you agree that bullying in general is hate speech? Why should hate speech be treated differently?.

 

[Seon]

So you are, in essence, making an argument that since correcting injustices would be a discriminatory act against people who commit injustices, we should tolerate people who commit injustices in our system? Is that about right?