@FAST6191 @Foxi4
Free speech absolutism only serves to penalise the most vulnerable in society and legitimises views which actively contribute to their dehumanisation and denigration. By exploiting one’s right to free speech to perpetuate anti-trans rhetoric, you exclude trans people from the conversation – this is not the definition of freedom for all.
Contrary to what crusaders for ‘free speech’ push for, websites have a duty of care to protect their most vulnerable members from hate speech and ideas which deny their humanity
Many would suggest that instead of ‘shutting down debate’, we must engage with ideas we do not like or that offend us. But what is there to debate about the following statement that I have seen posted on the site a few times “women do not have penises”? What intelligent or insightful ideas can be brought to the table in a display of such free speech and academic peacocking when we swing back and forth between denying the reality of thousands of trans women around the world and accepting it? It is neither a productive nor a particularly intelligent stance to take that one group’s experience of gender is invalid just because of their genitalia.
This is not an issue of one man’s right to free speech being compromised because, fundamentally, it has not been compromised
It is an issue of allowing transgender people to exist without being exposed to trans-exclusionary rhetoric. We are not obliged to engage with ideas that are outright toxic to us and to others.
Those who dress this up as an issue of free speech are simply crying censorship to disguise their own bigotry and making a mockery of the fact that, in 2020, people around the globe are still being imprisoned and killed for free expression. Instead of using the Western ‘regressive left’ as a scapegoat, perhaps we should be channelling our passion for freedom of speech into campaigning against regimes around the world where free and critical speech is routinely quashed – because here in the UK, and indeed the USA it is not.
I don't know if I rank as an absolutist. Fire in a crowded theatre, "get that guy" in a crowd, intellectual property as a general concept (not so keen on many implementations but as a general principle), slander and libel all seem like things I would be up for.
But anyway.
I define your opposition to free speech as all those words you used, exclusionary, offensive, damaging to my mental health (if it does not exist I might say the wrong word and then my wife would leave me, I would get fired, I will end up under a bridge... best I not say anything and live in fear that not only I might transgress but a friend, employer, person I watch online or family member might, and indeed might have said something in the past that is now deemed offensive even if it was not back then).
Indeed I would go one further and say it is not arbitrary (not that it would matter if it was) and that being able to tell those in power, and those in general, my ideas on the world and more besides has led to more advancement, progress if prefer the term, and has been part of the tradition of freedom longer than.
So there are some arseholes in the world. If you are going to make an omelette you get to break a few eggs.
Or more generally "right to not be offended" is not one that is in any way workable from where I sit.
Say we reach the vaunted day in which 500 people are all that is left that hold the view that transexuals are in fact [insert whatever foul view you want to claim]. Unquestionably a minority in the population. Do they suddenly gain the right to express their views? If that is population at large what about local gathering?
Go another if you want. Transexuals in sports. What do? Some tell me that the mere idea that not considering them as the sex they want to be for all intents and purposes is utterly offensive. Others would say there are actually fairness and safety concerns. Others, perhaps members of the previous position, would ponder something with blood levels. Others would say sports is a genetic freak show at competitive level anyway so meh suck it up. That seems like grounds for a debate there. If it is shut down because of the first mob that say anything but utter acceptance is bigotry plain and simple (by definition anything else would be exclusionary) then has that advanced the state of the world?
Some tell me that not wanting to sleep with someone of the trans persuasion is itself bigotry, as opposed to a preference. Is that not a position that could be challenged or do we have to operate under the assumption that merely challenging that is offensive?
"A drug that makes people not care about their brain not matching with their chromosomes is a good thing to have"
Note this is not saying it should be mandatory (and will also sidestep the "what if they have been sectioned?" debate for this one too), just that if it existed with tolerable side effects (wouldn't exactly bin it for the occasional mild case of dry mouth) it would be a nice thing to have and should one show promise then maybe some research is in order. Some consider the notion that such things could exist as terribly upsetting ("so I take this pill and it goes away" not exactly being a novel notion in such circles). I don't know that I have seen it for the whole trans thing actually but I have actually seen it for gays, autism and disabilities so it seems a logical follow on.
This may also be derailing the original discussion. We can continue here, and quite happy to have another thread.
