The phrase "free speech platform" sounds like a giant, enormous dog whistle. Which is a damn shame, because I used to enjoy that place, and now I'm not sure I will anymore... Don't want to jump to conclusions, but is there ANY self-described "bastion of free speech on the internet" that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?
I'm a white, heterosexual cis male in my 40s not living in the US, so this does not affect me in any way, shape or form directly, but it still feels just icky, unnecessary and tone-deaf. Guess I'll post photos of my succulents and my goofy dog just on Lemmy from now on, bummer...
I think it is a dog whistle , here in India there are people who openly talk of genocide , homophobia and what not and call it their right to speech and expression !
The "funny" thing is that the moment those people have power they don't have a problem going against free speech (see having books banned (in the US) or trying to stop people from voicing their opinion (Meloni in Italy))
It's all just exploiting the tolerance of the system in order to make it less tolerant
That's why completely unchecked free speech is a bad idea as it will eventually lead in its complete demise
I mean that is literally what a right to free speech means, so they're not wrong.
That way yall can let nazi shit going and call it freedom of speech , murder is also freedom of expression in a way then ?
No, not at all. Murder is an action that is illegal. Saying something isn't, no matter how much you disagree with it. I don't like people saying racist stuff, but I'm certainly not of the belief that they shouldn't be allowed to say it.
Now imagine people holding hate speech conferences where they gather and talk about cleaning the population (a dogwhistle to genocide) I wonder if that is ok ! And the riots that happen coz of the radicalised masses ?
And the riots that happen coz of the radicalised masses ?
Aren't these called "mostly peaceful protests" now? Or is that only when it's your "side" that's doing the rioting?
is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?
No, because awful people congregate wherever they are tolerated.
is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people
When you have a "free speech" policy, you attract principled free-speech advocates who want to discuss issues rather than shouting down unpopular opinions, a few people who are well-behaved and intelligent but write about ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying, and a whole bunch of people who got banned everywhere else for being rude and disruptive.
The best-moderated such place that I've seen had a policy requiring politeness and high-effort posts, which kept out the third group.
The second group can be tough to tolerate.
Sometimes they're interesting, sometimes they're a Holocaust denier who cites references, and you look up those references and they appear to be real papers written by real academics, and you know this is all wrong but you're not a historian and even if you were you don't have time to address every issue in this guy's entire life's work and you just wish the topic never came up. But you can't keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.
This is a great overview of the benefits and problems of free speech platforms without the immediate nosedive into the dogwhistle argument that seems to just be used as a thought/discussion stopper more than anything else lately.
I feel that it's vitally important that free speech spaces exist. Places to discuss "ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying" are important, but they aren't for everyone and they do by their nature offer spaces for "undesirable" people like holocaust deniers.
Exactly, and as long as the platform provides ways to ignore people like holocaust deniers, holocaust deniers should be allowed on the platform.
I hate racists, but I don't want all racists to be banned from Lemmy/Twitter/Facebook/etc. I want them to be able to share their opinions on there, in large part because I can then challenge their ideas and opinions. If I feel that they're being disingenuous, arguing in bad faith, and start name calling etc I can just block them and move on. That is how places like this should work IMO. That is what "free speech" advocates want.
I don't believe there should be ANY restrictions on what people can say on here as long as it isn't illegal. No one should be getting banned or censored for sharing their opinions IMO.
But you can’t keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.
The thing is that you don't need to and shouldn't "keep them out". What you should do is just let people ignore/block/mute them.
How do you prevent such a platform to turn into an environment that is actively hostile towards the people they "nicely discuss" should be dead / subjugated / tortured / etc.?
Or do you think it is okay to drive out certain types of people? How is that still considered "free speech" if those people's voices will be completely missing from the platform?
You let people self moderate. Once you block a user you don't see them anymore.
How is that still considered “free speech” if those people’s voices will be completely missing from the platform?
It's free speech because they're allowed to post there. Them choosing not to because they can't handle other people being allowed to exercise their free speech is a them problem, not the platforms problem.
Considering the original movement for free speech it is rather cynical to think it's freedom to silence people. But that's what people are doing when they create an environment that is so hostile towards certain groups of people that these people won't participate. Freedom to communicate hate speech is creating an echo chamber, not a free speech platform.
The problem is when one side is calling everything they disagree with “hate speech” and banning everyone that even questions it.
Individuals blocking people isn’t “silencing” them. It’s not infringing on free speech.
It’s funny that you mention an echo chamber when this heavy handed Moderation and censorship is literally making one. When you only allow one viewpoint and ban all the others you’re literally making an echo chamber. You guys want an echo chamber, just one that echos your viewpoint.
I misread that as you describing your dog as succulent.
That was some awkward English, fixed it now :)
It's all good, I think I just needed to read more slowly!
Why bummer? It's a great place so far in my opinion. The people are so much friendlier here.
True, Squabbles just felt better suited than Lemmy to short, no context random posts and photos. Might be all in my head though :)
More good options is always a good thing.
Like someone else said in another comment, I'm sure everybody on the left agree with the concept of free speech. So IMHO the real question is, why is it the case that platforms advocating free speech attract right wingers and extremists?
Because the left does not approve of hate speech, which is what right wingers immediately rush to spew whenever they see freeze peach.
People confuse free speech with freedom to harass and driving people out. When 90 % of a site (as an example) are antisemitic rants and antisemitic memes Jews are actively driven out of the place. You actually make a place less free by allowing discrimatory content. People have to potentially hide their identity or have to endure constant hostility. In consequence you are removing their voices from the platform.
I guess most "people on the left" would agree that you can create such a platform for yourself and your buddies but do not call it "free speech" when in reality it just creates a venting platform for a certain type of people.
I’m sure everybody on the left agree with the concept of free speech
Not sure if serious......?
Yo dog, I gotta know. Where are you posting those succulent pics?! I've been missing r/Succulents since the blackout.
but is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?
The thing is that you're just calling people that you disagree with "awful people" because they have different opinions. They also think you're awful for the same reason.
People need to get away from this idea that people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions and ideas. I'm all for completely unrestricted free speech. Let racist people spew their racist hateful garbage - but let people call them out on it. Let people try to change their mind. Let people show them exactly how they're being a piece of shit.
All you have to do is give people options to block/mute people and you can take care of it yourself. What I hate is when people call for censoring and banning of differing opinions on a platform level.
That is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that every single online platform that I know that describes itself as a "free speech platform/bastion/zone/whatever" gets sooner or later filled to the brim with people spouting vile, deplorable and often violent rhetoric.
I can discuss a lot of things and accept, understand or at least tolerate a lot of opinions differing from mine, but things like "black people are sub-human", "gays should be killed" or "preschoolers can be sexy"* are NOT in that group. And these types of comments are inevitably what naming your site a "free speech platform" attracts in my experience. I think there is no way to discuss (or even just utter) them in good faith, and yes, I do consider people holding such beliefs to be awful - it's not like I’m trying to use the term lightly or to denote folks who like different pizza toppings or TV shows than I do...
My point is that just because you can't tolerate them it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to be presented. Like I said - give people the ability to block/mute people and let them self moderate what content they interact with and see. You don't like people saying "black people are sub human" and don't want to have a conversation with them to point out why they're wrong etc? Cool, block them. Problem solved.
I will discuss anything with anyone. I'll happily debate a racist to try and show them why they're wrong and being a piece of shit. I'll debate a flat earther to show them the facts that prove the earth is round. If/when the racist starts name calling and being disingenous I'll call them out on it and if they double down I simply block them - that's what I've done in this very thread when some guy started name calling and becoming abusive when we were 6 comments deep each in conversation. I disagreed with their viewpoint, but I would never want their ability to give their viewpoint to be taken away. Once it became clear that they were not interested in an actual discussion and just resorted to name calling, I simply blocked them and "walk away".
That is what free speech advocates want. Just because you're offended by something it doesn't mean it should be censored or banned. As Ricky Gervais said:
"I want people to stop saying that joke's offensive. I want them to start saying "I found it offensive" because that's all that it is. You're just telling me how you feel about it."
>people are on the proprietary and centralized platform
>the proprietary and centralized platform does a bad thing
>people are moving to another proprietary and centralized platform
>another proprietary and centralized platform does a bad thing
I dont think most people care about whether something is centralized or not. I definitely dont. I am on Lemmy because it is afaik the biggest alternative to reddit with the most content. If there was a centralized version with more and better content I would go there
Seems you're kind of a leech though, that just wants people to keep creating these sandboxed for you to play in. Federated means they are less likely to have to do all this work to rebuild in the future.
But as long as you get yours, right?
The vast majority just wants to browse the place with all the relevant content so that they don't miss out on current events. No need to resort to calling people leeches when the vast majority never even comment, let alone post.
honestly my experience starting this month is we're already over the critical mass of users. there's still stuff that isn't here that I've seen yet but I don't run out of content and get bored, so reddit's already obsolete.
You’re not wrong, but that person shouldn’t be chastised for expecting a place that bills itself as being like Reddit to uhh… be like Reddit.
The lemmy federation should try to be something fundamentally different from Reddit, given the indisputable fact that it’s form led to its downfall like other aggregators before it.
Federation just means it's confusing to sign up. I don't care if I am a leech. I just want content and the ability to use my preferred app to get it.
It's always telling when people describe a minority as a "political movement" rather than... people
It’s also telling when people frame any and all discussion around anything LGBT+ as “transphobic” and “trying to kill trans people”.
The current gender/trans ideology isn’t just scientific fact that has to be followed and believed. People should be allowed to disagree and question it without being censored and banned.
That seems to be the point the creator is making - they didn’t make it to be a circle jerking safe space for only the far left “progressives”. They made it for everyone to be able to talk about their beliefs without being censored and banned, but one ideological group absolutely doesn’t want that.
That's the point OP was making when they said LGBT+ isn't political. LGBT+ isn't an ideology for people to share "beliefs" about. It will exist whether or not you believe in it, and normalizing people who say I don't believe in it is essentially denying the LGBT+ person's identity. It's ok to say you don't understand, or even like it, but to simply say "you're making up your gender identity" is wrong and harmful.
The current LGBTQ+ ideology is a political ideology though. It’s not just facts and it’s not about “existing” like people try to make it out to be.
The current trend of “a 3 year old boy that plays with barbies is trans so should be put on puberty blockers” is an ideology, same with “trans women have no physical advantages over biological women”, same with trying to teach 8 year olds about anal sex and masturbation. None of these things have anything to do with people “existing”.
The ideology that says simply saying you’re a woman makes you a woman and therefore are entitled to women-only places and things like scholarships and awards is what most people are against. No one cares if a 25 year old biological male wants to put on a dress and wear makeup and call themself Jane. Most people will even play along with your new pronouns. People shouldn’t be forced to by law though, and that’s another of the big issues people have.
Tl;dr - being trans isn’t political. Pushing the current trans beliefs and ideologies like gender identity, self ID, and “trans women are women” is.
How are medically approved operations by doctors an ideology? As long as the parents and their doctors have identified an issue they need to address, and the procedure they decide on is safe, reversible, and is known to make the child's life happier, who are you and I to stop them?
Pushing the current trans beliefs and ideologies like gender identity, self ID, and “trans women are women” is.
That's conservatives making it political. Claiming your own gender identity is not political, it's a natural human behavior to self identify. Please explain how you can say trans people can exist while at the same time if they try to self-identity then they're being political? There's no "conservative gene" that prevents you from choosing your gender identity (i.e. Caitlyn Jenner). Just acknowledging transgenderism exists is completely apolitical. If you see it as "pushing gender identity" that's your problem.
How are medically approved operations by doctors an ideology?
I didn't once mention medically approved operations? If you're talking about doing them on kids then that's a whole other issue.
and the procedure they decide on is safe, reversible, and is known to make the child’s life happier, who are you and I to stop them?
And here lies the problem - parents pushing their ideology on to their kids. Also what "trans surgeries" are "safe and reversible"? None. Cutting off your male genitalia is not reversible. A hysterectomy is not reversible. Cutting off your breasts is not reversible (though you can at least try and make up for it with breast implants). Puberty blockers are not fully reversible, and most countries are now acknowledging this. You simply cannot stunt someones physical (and mental) growth and have it just resume years later as if nothing has changed. There are zero long term studies on puberty blockers. There are however known long term issues with them.
it’s a natural human behavior to self identify.
Not as a different gender/sex it's not. It has only become a thing very recently, where simply saying "I'm a woman" now means you're a woman, no questions asked.
Please explain how you can say trans people can exist while at the same time if they try to self-identity then they’re being political?
That's not at all what I said. Pushing for being able to let "Self ID" give you access to the opposite sexes spaces and sports and awards and other things is the political part. Trans people existing has nothing to do with that. The issues with self ID are that men who have literally done nothing to transition can now go in to womens events/spaces without question. A great example is the weightlifting competitions where gender Self ID was allowed, so a anti-self id man entered and just annihilated the competition as a protest to show how stupid it is. The only requirement for him to enter the womens competition was for him to tick a box saying he's a woman.
Transgender and gender ideology are different things. Transgender is "I am the other gender to what I was born as". Gender ideology is "I can be whatever gender i want, whenever i want, and can change gender a thousand times during the day, and I should get all of the rights afforded to whichever sex/gender i call myself at the time". They're not one and the same.
I didn’t once mention medically approved operations? If you’re talking about doing them on kids then that’s a whole other issue.
No, I don't approve of irreversible medical surgeries on people under age of 16, but that's not a thing in any case. It's in response to your comments about 3 year olds getting puberty blockers (which is also not a thing) in which case it is temporary, reversible, and typically starts at 8 (10+ for boys).
And here lies the problem - parents pushing their ideology on to their kids. Also what “trans surgeries” are “safe and reversible”? None. Cutting off your male genitalia is not reversible. A hysterectomy is not reversible
My child is sick, feeling depressed, I go to the doctor, they discuss possible issues, and through preset, clinical guidelines, they decide that treatment for gender dysmorphia is an option. Again, reversible, safe treatments like puberty blockers and therapy that help prevent children from self-harm and further confusion about their identify. It's not like they're passing out puberty blockers like candies for funsies and doing this for fun.
I'm not even talking about transgender surgeries, which happens at 18+ of age.
it’s a natural human behavior to self identify.
Not as a different gender/sex it’s not. It has only become a thing very recently, where simply saying “I’m a woman” now means you’re a woman, no questions asked.
Say's who? If one wants another to call them by another thing, who are we to dispute that? Gender CAN be fluid. Your biological sex that you were born with hasn't changed, it's their GENDER. Gender doesn't have to match your sex. And transgenderism has been a thing since ancient times. Have you considered that maybe more people are coming "out" recently because they're feeling safer to express themselves?
The issues with self ID are that men who have literally done nothing to transition can now go in to womens events/spaces without question. A great example is the weightlifting competitions where gender Self ID was allowed, so a anti-self id man entered and just annihilated the competition as a protest to show how stupid it is. The only requirement for him to enter the womens competition was for him to tick a box saying he’s a woman.
There have been exactly 0 assaults by transgender women entering a public bathroom. And your concerns about a troll entering sports competitions is going to out-weight all of the self-harm and suicides committed by people suffering from unaddressed/repressed gender identity issues?
Gender ideology is “I can be whatever gender i want, whenever i want, and can change gender a thousand times during the day, and I should get all of the rights afforded to whichever sex/gender i call myself at the time”.
Show me one time where that has happened and it has harmed someone else by doing it. And again, if they want to change their gender once or a thousand times, how is it any of your business? Besides sports competitions and bathrooms, I mean.
Having empowerment over their gender identity is an important part of being a transgender person, denying them that right is inhuman and cruel. Gender ideology, or whatever you want to call it, is simply (in my opinion) expressing a sense of safety and freedom to others that want to identify as something else from what they were born as. And believe it or not, this can happen whether you are conservative or liberal - it is absolutely a HUMAN desire, not a political one.
Look, I understand that if I call someone that looks and talk like a women a she, but wants to be called a man, there's going to be confusion. But what do I lose out of my day if they simply said "sorry, I'm actually a he" and I respect that moving forward?
No, I don’t approve of irreversible medical surgeries on people under age of 16, but that’s not a thing in any case.
That thing that never happens yet still happens isn't actually happening? lol Also why did you choose 16 as your cutoff? They're still legally, physically, and mentally a child at 16.
in which case it is temporary, reversible, and typically starts at 8 (10+ for boys).
Not fully reversible, and the sooner your "side" acknowledges this the better. Governments all over the world are recognising this now and are removing all mentions of "fully reversible" from their documents and legislation, and many are now outlawing it altogether because there are literally no long term studies done to prove that they are reversible. The difference between 3 and 8 or 10 is completely irrelevant. A 8 year old has no better understanding of gender identity than a 3 year old, they lack the mental capacity for understanding this and they absolutely cannot understand the life long repercussions.
My child is sick, feeling depressed, I go to the doctor, they discuss possible issues, and through preset, clinical guidelines, they decide that treatment for gender dysmorphia is an option.
Sick? Gender dysphoria/dysmorphia doesn't make anyone "sick". You're also overlooking all of the places that hand out diagnoses and scripts for drugs after a literal 10 minute phone call, intentionally so most likely.
I’m not even talking about transgender surgeries, which happens at 18+ of age.
Apart from when they don't, like how you yourself even said in this same post that you're ok with it at 16 years of age. What is it, 18 or 16?
If one wants another to call them by another thing, who are we to dispute that?
Again, this is the problem - you can call yourself whatever you want. I. Don't. Care. Simply calling yourself a woman however should not mean that you now have access to women's sports and women only safe spaces like gyms and doctors etc.
There have been exactly 0 assaults by transgender women entering a public bathroom.
Come on mate, you don't even believe these lies.
And your concerns about a troll entering sports competition is going to out-weight all of the self-harm and suicides committed by people suffering from unaddressed gender identity issues?
The fact that even post gender affirming surgery the suicide rate doesn't decrease among transgender people says all that needs to be said. You're basically saying "let womens sports be taken over by biological males because if you don't the transgender people will kill themselves". I believe this is what you guys call "gaslighting"?
Show me one time where that has happened and it has harmed someone else by doing it.
I literally just did with the weightlifting example. A woman lost out on a prize because a man chose to be a woman so he could enter the competition. Self ID lets that happen. He did it to stop another self ID'ing transgender person from winning, to show how stupid the rule is. If you want other examples just look at the women that get raped in bloody rape crisis centres and even prisons by self id'ing males.
And again, if they want to change their gender a thousand times, how is it any of your business? Besides sports competitions and bathrooms.
Sports competitions and bathrooms etc in this situation are the only thing I am against. I don't care if you want to change your gender 1000000 times a day. It doesn't affect me. I don't care. As I've said many times, I care when it affects other people, such as in sporting competitions and bathrooms (and children of course).
Look, I understand that if I call someone that looks and talk like a women a she, but wants to be called a man, there’s going to be a confusion. But what do I lose out of my day if they simply said “sorry, I’m actually a he” and I respect that moving forward?
You're not going to get any disagreement from me though, this is what I keep saying. I have nothing against transgender people. Everyone can live their life identifying as whatever the hell they want, I don't care. I care about fairness, safety, and scientific facts though, so when you identifying as something else encroaches on any of that, that's when we have a problem.
Finally some sanity on this site.
❤️
FYI one of these things that never happen happened again:
Indigenous peoples have acknowledged a “third gender” aka non binary for centuries - way before colonization.
How can you say self identifying in regards to sex/gender is a recent ideology when it’s been part of human history for centuries?
Sounds like bland, generic, thoughtless conservative nonsense to eliminate other perspectives (especially when you discount them as new despite existing for centuries)
How can you say self identifying in regards to sex/gender is a recent ideology when it’s been part of human history for centuries?
It hasn't though. People are now using absurd leaps to try and pretend that it has been around for centuries, but it hasn't. Got some links to these "third gender" stories?
Those links say that the indigenous people used "two spirit" to refer to homosexuals. That's not at all like "self identifying".
Genuine question, what would you expect people who were born intersex to do? How would you know whether or not someone is intersex?
Edit: They do exist.
Chances are you and I will go our entire lives never coming in contact with an actual intersex person. Your children probably won’t either. Their children also won’t. Your parents wouldn’t have either. Statistically they’re just basically not a thing.
What would I have them do in regards to what exactly?
It is scientific fact; at least every major medical organization in the US is in total agreement about what you refer to as “gender ideology,” and what we call the existence of trans people.
“Just asking questions” about it is as disingenuous and false as “just asking questions” about evolution. If you truly believe trans people exist and deserve to be respected you wouldn’t feel the need to ask these questions.
But yes, the founder chose anti-trans concerns above trans concerns. LGBT people will leave and the platform will become a conservative circlejerk. You have that part right at least.
You've really jumped deep into things by assuming what the person you're responding to means isn't scientific fact is the actual existence of trans people. They could, but they were woefully vague.
Most people I've interacted with who have misgivings are more focused on things like the insistence that there are no differences between afab and amab bodies, and therefore trans women athletes should be allowed to compete against afab athletes.
That's a currently "unallowed to challenge" topic that pretty much immediately gets you labelled transphobic, but here's the rub: female athletes doping with testosterone to achieve higher muscle mass is something that is banned from sports competitions, so why does it matter whether it was artificially obtained via pill or naturally by the fact that they had years of body and muscle development as male before transistioning?
There's no good solution to this problem, but the fact that anyone who brings it up gets labelled as transphobic is ridiculous. It's not inherently denying trans people anything to discuss it (that has more to do with the person discussing it than the topic itself). For me it's an attempt to ensure that all female athletes afab trans or other are on an even playing field, ideally so people have less excuse to easily dismiss trans athlete achievements.
I don't think this is vague in the slightest:
The current gender/trans ideology isn’t just scientific fact that has to be followed and believed.
I know no person interested in trans liberation that also talks about "gender/trans ideology."
I find sports misgivings a red herring with regards to trans liberation. To me, it feels like asking someone to be less racist, and hearing them respond "well what about Black people in sports? What about white athletes' feelings? How do we determine if an athlete is white enough to compete against other whites?" The entire notion is wrong-headed to begin with. Yes, if we include trans people in sports, sometimes they might win. What's so bad about trans people winning at sports?
In any case, clearly the person I was responding to was not talking about this.
Here is the thing when it comes to sports, there are usually two main divisions in most sports, the best of the best league, and the women league. In most sports there is technically no rule against women playing in the best of the best leagues, but they are just at so much of a disadvantage it is almost unheard of for them to be able to compete at that level. The only reason that women only sports exist is to allow people with that biological disadvantage to compete professionally against others with the same disadvantage. It's a league that's sole purpose is to allow women to be competitive against other women because the men are just so much better.
It might sound like I'm bashing women's sports, but I'm not. I'm glad women have an avenue to compete at pro levels, because without women only sports they would not.
I have no problem with anybody trying to compete in the best of the best league, men, women, trans, black, white, etc. But when it comes to leagues specifically limited to give those in the league a fair competition, we shouldn't be opening that up to those who don't have the disadvantage that defines the league. This applies to women leagues, the special Olympics, and other limited leagues.
I know this, I just don’t think it matters. Our a priori assumption must be trans people should be included everywhere as much as possible, just like Black people or Jewish people. Fairness will adjust to our expectations, so everything will feel fine in the end, just as it did when we allowed other minorities to compete in leagues they were formerly barred from.
How can it not matter? You have a sport built around the idea of fair competition to a genetic physical weakness, and you think we should just throw that all away? I'm not sure why you are bringing race and nationality into this discussion, that's never been a race based disadvantage that we decided we needed to design sports around.
Our a priori assumption must be trans people should be included everywhere as much as possible,
I agree, but I think sports falls under "not possible" because they don't meet the requirements for the women's league. I have no problem with a trans league, or they are more than welcome to compete in the best of the best league. I don't think they should be competing in women's sports, it's unfair to all biological women athletes who compete against other biological women athletes.
And if you want to compare it to race, where the idea of a race segregated sport would be super controversial, let's just get rid of women's sports all together. Women are equal to men, right? They can do anything a man can do, right? What are we pretending women aren't equal by putting them in their own sports leagues? Let's just get rid of all women's sports, let them compete directly with the men, and may the best win.
I’m fine sorting people by weight classes or hormone levels. But gender is not a useful way to do that and hasn’t been for years. The Olympics, for example, tests your hormone levels and not what your natal sex was or what your genitals look like.
But ultimately I just don’t think sports matters more than peoples’ rights. So if we have to abolish gendered sports, especially below the ultra-professional level, I’m fine with that.
And yes, people did indeed claim certain races had advantages in sports and pointed to science about muscle density to support their theories. They would consider themselves well-justified by Black people dominating certain sports. It is the same with trans athletes.
But gender is not a useful way to do that and hasn’t been for years.
So you are for getting rid of women's sports, special Olympics, and everything in that realm and just letting everyone compete as people of the human race?
But ultimately I just don’t think sports matters more than peoples’ rights.
What rights? There is no right to compete in stuff you are not eligible for.
So if we have to abolish gendered sports, especially below the ultra-professional level, I’m fine with that.
So you are fine with women essentially never being competitive in sports? Personally I think it's great they have their own league, because otherwise there wouldn't really be women in sports.
And yes, people did indeed claim certain races had advantages in sports and pointed to science about muscle density to support their theories. They would consider themselves well-justified by Black people dominating certain sports. It is the same with trans athletes.
Except that they are competing in the open to everyone category, even if some races had an advantage, that's legal in an open to everyone category. Women's sports are not open to everyone, only to biological females who don't take performance enhancing substances. Again, if you want to essentially remove women from sports by pretending biological males and females are the same, that's your grave to dig.
Race isn't the same as gender, I'm hoping you realize that. In today's world, gender is more a state of mind than anything else, race is not. I can choose to become the opposite gender, I can't choose to be black as a white person.
If trans athletes want to compete in sports, compete in the open to everyone league, don't try to compete in leagues you don't qualify for. Women's sports, if they are to still exist, are for biological and non testosterone taking females only.
So you are for getting rid of women’s sports, special Olympics, and everything in that realm and just letting everyone compete as people of the human race?
As I said, below the ultra-professional level, yes. Inside the ultra-professional level, gender tests are already not used to differentiate people into competition categories so they've already solved this problem. Read what I said in my previous post.
even if some races had an advantage, that’s legal in an open to everyone category
The point is it didn't used to be. This was because people had research at the time showing that Black people had "higher muscle density" and other nonsense pseudoscience that they used to bar them from the "open to everyone categories." Which, at the time, were not open to everyone, but only white people.
Since you are just not understanding this: the same arguments used to prevent Black people from competing (they would dominate certain sports, their inclusion would make white people feel bad, their existence is basically the same as taking performance enhancing substances) are literally the same ones used to prevent trans people from competing. We decided those problems didn't matter, and now, yes, Black people do win in certain sporting fields more. But everyone's decided that's okay.
Literally the same thing will happen with trans people. I know you have this weirdly deep-seated need to believe in the fairness of sports, but fairness is a construction we apply to sports, not something inherent in them naturally. If we include trans people as much as possible, it will still feel fair, even if trans people (gasp) even sometimes win.
In today’s world, gender is more a state of mind than anything else, race is not. I can choose to become the opposite gender, I can’t choose to be black as a white person.
Gender is not "more a state of mind than anything else," any more than sex (or race) is. Trans people are their actual genders, they aren't pretending to be a man or woman for the day, any more than a Black person is pretending to be a white person or vice versa.
Frankly, as I said at the beginning of this discussion, the entire sports argument is stupid though. The rights of an entire minority (yes, their rights) shouldn't hinge on whether or not they can compete in sporting events, and every time trans liberation is brought up people whine "but what about fairness in sports?"
You should find other stuff to care about, because the amount of trans athletes is vanishingly small and the amount of ink spilled on debating their inclusion with sports totally out-of-proportion to the "problem" itself.
The NFL isn’t a male league for example - it’s an open league. How many women have ever even made it to the tryout stage? One. A kicker. She didn’t come close to making even a training squad.
Sam Kerr, the best women’s soccer player on earth, wouldn’t even get close to making a men’s pro team. The world beating women’s USA team, winners of the past 2 world cups, got annihilated by an under 15s boys team.
The issue isn't just that they might win, it's that they will naturally dominate in competitions where biological makeup matters.
If you don't see how that's not fair I don't know what to tell you. There are hard rules in biology that don't mesh with gender identity politics, and there's no way around that.
Fair to whom?
Lots of people were worried about Black people dominating certain sports. And, as it turns out, Black people do dominate certain sports. Is that unfair to white people?
No. People are just different. Fairness adjusts and we get over it.
So too here.
How do biological women adapt to someone like Lia Thomas? Are they just going to magically all just grow another foot in height and increase their bone density and muscle mass to levels that women can’t naturally get?
You’re right, it’s not vague at all - it’s not denying trans people exist in any way. Trans people existing isn’t an ideology, so questioning the current trans and gender ideology has nothing to do with trans people existing or not. You’re jumping to conclusions because you want to dismiss any opinion you don’t agree with, and currently the “that’s transphobic!” line is basically a get out of jail free card in that way. Just call someone transphobic and get them banned so you don’t have to have your opinion challenged, create that echo chamber you want so badly.
Your response to the sports issue of “what’s so wrong with trans women winning women’s sporting events” says it all. “Who cares about biological women, the feelings of trans women matter more.”
Trans women can compete with men. If there is no physical or biological advantage for males then why do they need to compete with the women? They can compete with the men and should do just fine.
Lia Thomas is all that needs to be pointed out for why your ideology here is wrong. 500+ ranked man……instantly #1 ranked woman. Breaks all the women’s records. Where are the trans men swimmers dominating the men’s division in swimming? Or in track and field? Cycling? Anywhere at all?!
No one denies trans people exist, but this is how the “progressives” that want males competing with females in sport and using female-only services frame any and all questioning of their ideology and motives.
If you truly believe trans people exist and deserve to be respected you wouldn’t feel the need to ask these questions.
I don't agree. I have A LOT of questions about gender identity to which I can't hypothesize answers because as a cis/het person I have no idea what it means and what it feels like being transgender, and I grew up in a time and a place where nobody ever talked about gender identity. The only way I can educate myself is by asking questions. Now I know a lot of people in the LGBTQ community are kinda fed up answering this kind of questions, and with good reason (cf. the "just asking questions" posture of anti-trans people). But some of us are being honest at just asking questions.
Those aren't the kinds of questions the OP was talking about; their dogwhistle about "trans/gender ideology isn't scientific fact" shows that they are indeed the kind of anti-trans person who is "just asking questions" to harass trans people.
If you have legitimate questions there are many excellent resources on the Internet and even in Lemmy itself where LGBTQ people will be happy to chat with you, if you approach them in a respectful manner :)
Gender ideology is not scientific fact. Gender as it is now know has literally no basis in science. Sex is biological reality. Gender is now a “feeling”.
That's disingenuous and your own link doesn't support what you are saying. The link demonstrates that gender to refer to self-identity is both recent and an artificial distinction. The science behind transgenderism is far from settled as much as people would like it to be. We don't even know what causes it.
Oh no… it does say exactly that and the science is indeed settled. There’s no “artificial distinction;” science says gender and sex are indeed different. Unless of course you can link a reputable scientific organization that disagrees with that overwhelming consensus?
We don’t know what causes most cancers either. That doesn’t mean they can’t be studied scientifically.
I didn't say it shouldn't be scientifically studied. It definitely should be, especially the extremely high rates of comorbid mental illnesses in trans/non-binary people.
The article you linked states that gender is now commonly considered a social construct rather than tied to your biological sex. They are making the distinction so that there is no confusion when reading their papers.
The science is not settled, they are conceding that the common use of the term now has a different meaning than it did in the past.
The science is indeed settled. Asserting once again it's not or that trans/nb people are mentally ill is both scientifically inaccurate and morally wrong. Unless, of course, you have literally any source claiming otherwise?
Your own link say says that gender is a social construct now. They're saying that there is literally no science involved, there is no basis in scientific fact there.
That's not "scientific fact". For something to be scientific fact it has to have scientific facts supporting it.
From that article:
In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual's gender presentation.
"self representation" is how you feel. It's a feeling. That's not scientific fact. Going "we acknowledge that society now treats gender as a new thing separate to sex" isn't the same as it being a scientifically proven fact.
I’m really not seeing the logic here, so called "feelings" are scientific facts and we do studies on them all the time. Is hunger not a feeling? Same thing with self-representation. Those aren’t nebulous concepts. Those are well-established scientific facts. Gender is an important part of self-representation and from all indications, one people have very little control over.
Gender is an important part of self-representation and from all indications, one people have very little control over.
So why are there people changing their "gender identity" multiple times a day?
so called “feelings” are scientific facts and we do studies on them all the time
Show me a scientific study that has found any existence whatsoever of "gender identity" through science. The very article linked here says it's a social construct. Social constructs are not "scientific facts".
Why do you guys always always jump straight to “you’re trying to deny trans people exist”? No one is saying trans people don’t exist. people are, however, opposed to people telling preschoolers that if they like stereotypical opposite sex things that they’re trans and should choose a new name and wear the other genders stereotypical clothes. It’s indoctrination.
If a kid still believes in Santa clause, telling them they’re trans and giving them praise and letting them choose their own name etc is forcing your ideology on them. They don’t know any better. All they know is an adult is telling them something so it must be true. Again - they believe in Santa clause and the tooth fairy. They don’t have the mental capacity to understand these things. They don’t have the mental capacity to be making permanent life altering decisions.
This whole “just asking questions” bullshit is just a way the “progressives” try to weaponise anyone questioning their beliefs and ideologies.
If lgbtq people can’t stand seeing people have different opinions to them then they should leave. They shouldn’t be trying to get everyone else banned.
It’s indoctrination.
This is totally nonsense. No one is "indoctrinating" children... except those who claim that children can't be trans. I would encourage you to swallow your pride and your preconceived notions and actually talk to trans people, many of whom report knowing exactly who they were at the first age they were aware of gender.
Anyway, the rest of your point is basically hateful bullshit. If you can't deal with LGBT people and our opinions, you're the one that should get out. We frankly don't need you.
No one is “indoctrinating” children… except those who claim that children can’t be trans.
When people say this they mean that children don't have the mental capacity to make that life changing decision. Again - kids believe in santa clause, the easter bunny, and the tooth fairy. They are extremely easily influenced and will believe what their parents tell them to a fault. If you tell a kid they're trans because they like the colour pink as a boy or blue as a girl, they're gonna believe you. That is the indoctrination people are talking about.
Are there kids that actually have gender dysphoria? Sure. They're the extreme minority of the kids that are currently trans though, because they don't even understand gender let alone "gender identity". Even teenagers aren't mentally developed enough to be making life altering decisions, which is why we don't let under 18 year olds get tattoos, drink, vote, etc. If you accept that these restrictions need to be in place for children, how can you be ok with giving them life altering drugs and surgeries?
Anyway, the rest of your point is basically hateful bullshit.
Sigh....there's the usual "transphobic" type dismissal/attack used to try and stop any and all discussion of differing viewpoints.
If you can’t deal with LGBT people and our opinions, you’re the one that should get out. We frankly don’t need you.
I can deal with LGBT people, I have no issues with them at all as I've said many times. I've explained why I don't, and what I do have problems with. Ironic that you say "We frankly don’t need you." because if that were true you wouldn't be constantly trying to force your beliefs on me.
"Let's have a reasonable rational debate about whether certain groups should have the right to exist! If you're a member of one of these groups, please be respectful to the people who say you should be exterminated!"
honestly reading this, it just sounds to me like he isn't cut out for community management. It is stressful and hard sometimes, so I get it, but he's going to kill his own site doing this. I did wonder about this before - it seemed like to me he regularly made changes based on feedback on a whim, and these changes were often rushed without much thinking. Needs to know when to pass the baton elsewhere and stick to development, but alas...
The last comments also speak to someone who's probably hiding some contrarian views of his own.
Shame.
cOnSeRvaTiVe vOiCeS aRe bEiNg sILeNcED!!
i.e. boohoohoo, I'm facing consequences for my hate speech.
It's the engineers doing graphic design but worse: engineers speedrunning social sciences.
Allowing bigots just means you are one. Rip squabbles.
As a wise bartender once said, "If you allow one Nazi, you no longer have a bar. You have a Nazi bar."
Thinking everyone you disagree with should be silenced and not allowed in is literally what fascists do. It's what the nazis did. How very "progressive" of you.
Everyone should be allowed to express their opinions and beliefs. Everyone, no matter how much you disagree with them. The onus should be on you to simply not engage with any that you don't want to, be that by simply ignoring them or by using the built in tools of the platform like blocking/ignoring. You're literally asking for censorship of speech.
This is a private site not the government. Private entries get to decide what goes as long as they aren't harming a protected class. Macy's e aren't a protected class.
You gave carpet bombed this thread with your fascist and bigoted posts. Absolutely pathetic. You're what these sites don't need. Go back to truth social.
Being against censorship = nazi fascist bigoted views now?
Goddamn you guys are so far gone it’s not funny. You don’t even see that you’re the fascists in this situation.
Is the person you're responding to not also using their free speech?
It's ironic, because you're implying that they shouldn't make comments on their thoughts about this, because the thought of censorship upsets you.
Don't forget that complaining and critiquing are also under the idea of free speech, even if you disagree with the other person.
Show me where I said that they shouldn’t be allowed to make comments on their thoughts.
LGBT people: "We have a right to exist."
'Free speech absolutists': "Ugh, take your political bullshit someplace else."
No idea how people think this is a valid way to talk about people literally fighting for their right to simply be present in public spaces without people attacking their very being.
Grand opening, Grand closing
If true: Well, that's the end of that platform I guess. Shame, I liked that there were so many alternatives cropping up.
They also removed the admins who disagreed with this decision. Jayclees and Daniel are the only "staff" left now. This is a really bad look for them.
Literally why would you go to this website over Reddit. It has all the same problems and is just more boring.
"Free speech" is just a dog whistle and gas lighting now. Unless it's fully allowing illegal content, then it's not free speech, which is obviously sane to not allow. That's why its a silly term to throw around in the first place.
“Free speech” is just a dog whistle and gas lighting now.
You're not wrong, but I remember when free speech was more of a liberal issue. Freedom for artistic expression and all that. Freedom to curse in music, freedom to create and view porn etc.
I don't think people really know what gas lighting is :p.
Relatedly, whether you understand the term or not, go watch the movie Gaslight where it comes from. Great film.
I'd go watch the movie, but my partner says that I'm too sick and clumsy to get out of bed right now. I don't know where I'd be if they weren't around to keep me straight, always reminding me of things I've said and done when I have moments of brain fog.
You wouldn't go watch the movie, you've never even seen a movie.
Where the jewels?!
I don't necessarily agree with the use of the term in this context, but I took it to mean that it's gaslighting in the sense that when you call it out as a dog whistle meaning "you can now be a POS on our platform", people can respond with stuff like "Wow, so you're anti-free speech? Do you hate America? Why do you want to censor people?" And shit like that, which is gaslighting IMO
Everything is gaslighting when you don't actually know what gaslighting means but just want to use the latest term all your liberal friends use.
I don't understand what I'm looking at here? Some reddit-ish place is declaring free-speech then they immediately backpedal and say racist stuff doesn't count, and also some admins left? So what is the material difference between a "free speech platform*" and lemmy which also doesn't allow racist stuff?
It sounds like they’re going to be allowing anti-LGBT hate speech, which was formerly a ban-worthy offense on their platform. Reddit and most Lemmy instances have rules against this, so I imagine Squabblr is going to attract the same sort of people that like using Truth Social.
In my experience forums that allow everything else will basically attract all the trans-, queer- and homophobes, misogynists and sexists.
Next step is for them to start dealing with DMCA takedowns.
Sounds like they are going to speed run what happen with Voat.
I wonder why of all bad things they make an exception specifically for racism and not something else like pedophilia for example.
One is illegal in every civilized country and one is not
I left a month ago because it was clear they were going this way. Glad I'm here
I remember trying out Voat. They weren't even hiding their love for certain words.
I'm really confused by this direction? The admin seemed... nice, and all of the users were "let's all be friends and be postivive x!" type people. Not exactly the place for "free speech" dog wistle folks. He's just going to alienate his entire userbase, I don't understand the point.
I hope people know that us all having instances would always be better than anything centralized elsewhere. 1) I can delete all my posts if I want. 2) anyone can make a better app to talk to it. 3) we got so many different ways of sharing our free speech here, it's not even funny. 4) you can backup your stuff. I'm not, but you can do that if you serve your own server. 5) you can establish your own rules or land on someone else's server that you trust.
At this point you gotta be a lower form of life to conclude that going centralized is good for anyone.
You deleting your posts from your own instance doesn't magically delete them from every other instance.
Seems to be standard functionality according to this:
According to the same article it can fail if the server is malfunctioning. But I would assume only rogue servers would do this intentionally...like suddenly kick all users or a particular user out and lock them out of their delete option.
I shouldn't have clicked that. Those people need professional help.
At least they have a place they can gather, and stay away from us.
their problem is that they don't like talking amongst themselves because they're mostly toxic people. they want normies and liberals to harass and get bored and agitated without them.
And more easily monitored.
so basically 4chan without the racial slurs
We’re “free speech” except these first 4 categories we could name off the top of our heads. There will never be any reason to add to this list. Adding to that list wouldn’t be “free speech”!
Well, they're being true to their namesake, I'll give them that.
Ah, so basically your site wants to see transphobic, homophobic, misogynist and sexist content. I see.
I joined Squabbles in June and liked it until the "free speech site" announcement.
I loved the lack of content ranking and downvoting so someone suggested Beehaw.
It seemed to me that the developer/admin jayclees was your basic tunnel visioned coder ignorant of news/current events. I got the feeling that he isn't politically invested. He just wanted to be left alone to code, so he changed his rules taking away the justification for messaging him. Posting on the site really slowed down. It looks like he lost many of his active users and kept his lurkers. I guess he figures it is worth the price of being left alone and that he will eventually get regular active posters again.
Wat da hel is squabbles?
***with the exception of racist content, the use of slurs (racial or otherwise), targetted harassment, and incitement of violence, ***
Did everyone just skip right past reading this part? That's a lot of exceptions that cover a large gamut of activity that will continue to be not allowed. That's not exactly "free speech" by definition, but it also is not allowing content that most platforms also do not allow.
I am not exactly sure what I am missing?
There's a lot of context. Basically, there's been a few weeks of controversy over whether anti-lgbt viewpoints would be allowed. This post (along with the removal of two admins) was a statement that anti-lgbt viewpoints are explicitly allowed on the site as long as they avoid slurs and direct incitement of violence. With a site population that leans pretty far left, this didn't go over well at all.
In other words, "you can pick on minorities as long as they aren't racial minorities." Yeah, great distinction.
I am curious why the allowance of anti-LGBT viewpoints is so controversial. As stated above, all of the basic rules of civility are still being enforced.
Let's say he decided to clarify that anti-Christian, or anti-capitalist viewpoints are not allowed. There are millions of people around the world who would claim such censorship is bigoted and narrow-minded. And they would be correct.
As long as people are polite to one another, what exactly is the problem with allowing people to express their perspectives?
This isn't a dispute over tax code or which Star Trek is better, this is a bunch of bigots declaring a group of people don't deserve to live and pretending they aren't awful bigots because they're doing it "politely". That's not a "viewpoint", that's a declaration of war.
also their actions have crossed the line into outright genocide
also their actions have crossed the line into outright genocide
Oh boy, here we go.
Tell me, how many trans people have been rounded up and murdered for being trans?
I'm going to guess you don't actually know what a genocide is, otherwise you wouldn't be shitting on the poor souls that actually died in a genocide by suggesting that poor trans women not being allowed to compete with biological women is a genocide.
Who are you referring to?
declaring a group of people don't deserve to live
I'm sure if anyone said that, they would rightly get banned. My question is why any disagreement or criticism is interpreted as a declaration of war?
LGBTQ people disagree vehemently amongst themselves about nearly every aspect of the LGBTQ experience. It's not a topic that is well understood by anyone, not even people who are a part of it.
Religion and Work are every bit as important as sexual identity, if not more so for many people. Christianity isn't Star Trek (at least not in the minds of Christians), yet we would consider a Christian who responded to honest criticism of their religion with hostility to be a narrow-minded fool at best, a dangerous zealot at worst.
Obviously there are debates going on in queer circles about politics and identity. None of those debates ask anything even remotely like “do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?” That is the question conservatives seek to ask and the reason they want “free speech” on these platforms.
“do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?”
I see people claiming that's occurring far more often than I see it occurring. Maybe because the free speech sites I go on aren't just using as a shield for far right wing beliefs.
I also see plenty of people claiming that someone is denying them the right to exist for simply asking questions that aren't supportive. Yes, there are the assholes "just asking questions" in bad faith, but just as in the human body an overactive immune system causes more damage than it protects from.
The frequent immediate assumption of bad faith that seems to be commonly demonstrated by LGBT+ and allies when interacting with questioning viewpoints doesn't help the cause.
As others have pointed out, that sort of attitude from religious people would have them labelled zealots. Why is this suddenly acceptable when it comes to the often far more confusing and less accessible topic of sexuality and dysphoria?
I think maybe you should ask why people have no patience for just asking the Jewish question, or wondering why we don’t talk about how great it was for Black people to be slaves. Even if you are asking questions in good faith, the questions themselves can have flawed premises.
Generally public forums are not a great place to just ask questions, especially about sensitive subjects. Asking the people in question in their own forums in a respectful way will get you much further if you truly have questions that you are seeking the answers to.
None of those debates ask anything even remotely like “do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?”
No "conservatives" have ever asked "do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?" though.
I'll ask you and I hope you can give me an answer since no one else has ever been able to - what human rights do trans people NOT have?
Nobody is born Christian or capitalist. People are taught it. It's not an innate property of a person. You can choose to not be either of those at any point in time.
If you're allowing this kind of discourse towards LGBT persons, communities, etc. but still enforcing anti-racial policies then you're obviously well uninformed and taking a specifically and completely anti LGBT stance, be it knowingly or unknowingly.
I would argue the same is true of LGBTQ individuals. I don't see how one could rationally argue that an infant emerges from the womb with a fully formed sense of sexuality. Sexual identity is a nebulous trait that develops throughout our lives, not an objective, immutable physical fact such as the color of one's skin or the chromosomes composing one's genetic code.
Many LGBTQ people transition through a number of different sexual identities throughout their lives. An innate property is something that cannot be changed.
I suppose that it's possible that we all get assigned a hidden number at birth that defines our sexuality absolutely, and people just struggle to figure out what their "number" is due to societal pressure, but that doesn't really jive with our understanding of human biology, like at all. Nearly every trait we have studied exhibits both genetic factors and environmental factors.
This seems pretty disingenuous. Sexual and gender identity is not changeable by people, even if it can develop or change over time; so discriminating against it is categorically wrong, as these “free speech platforms” seek to do. In that regard it is the same as skin color.
I don't believe in free will, so I suppose we have reached a stalemate. In my mind, one's religion or favorite color is no more of a choice than sexual orientation. But I understand that most people would disagree with that perspective, and trying to convince you that free will doesn't exist is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Sexual and gender identity is not changeable by people
Huh? Isn't this literally the opposite of what the LGBTQ+ current ideology is? That gender identity can change at any given second of any given day, as often as you want?
so discriminating against it is categorically wrong
No one is asking for "discrimination" against LGBTQ+ people though, they're just asking for people that don't agree with their ideology to not be harrassed, censored, and banned. Pretty hilarious when you think about it - the minority group are actively calling for "discrimination" against people that they disagree with.
Because these 2 things are not the same, and by conflating them as such, you pretty clearly show what side of the fence you fall on. Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist is not the same thing as arguing about which brand of magic sky-daddy you subscribe to.
"Anti-LGBT viewpoints" fall along a pretty clear line. The same one that "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Black" views fall on. That these minorities don't deserve the same rights granted to white people, or even that they shouldn't be allowed to exist period. There has never been any other view presented by "anti-LGBT" people. They seek to exclude minorities from everyday life and eventually kill them off entirely. The arguments they use today against trans people are the same they used against gay people, which are just rehashed arguments they used to oppose equal rights for black people. There's no politeness to be found there. Might as well say that we should hear the Nazis out on this "final solution to the Jewish question," so long as they're polite in their arguing their case.
Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist
This isn't at all what anyone is saying though, and your side keep on trying to make it about that. No one thinks that LGBT people don't deserve the right to exist. Saying "hey guys, maybe don't have transgender people doing strip teases with sexual fetishes and inuendo in front of children" isn't "denying your right to exist". Saying "hey guys can you please not give books teaching kids about sucking dick and having anal sex to our 8 year olds?" isn't "denying your right to exist".
That these minorities don’t deserve the same rights granted to white people, or even that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist period
What rights don't trans people currently have that other people have? This is another of those disingenuous catchphrases that the "progressives" have. "trans rights are human rights!".....sure, so? What human rights don't you have? No one is denying you any rights.
I left my home because the leadership was getting so extreme, they decided that people no longer deserved healthcare because they were trans. I watched the governor crucify his own son, his child, over it. When people protested, even those in government, those government officials were formally gagged and kicked out of participating in government.
Those officials represented far more than just a few trans people. They represented entire districts in major cities. They represented families, straight and gay. Veterans, old and young, everyone. All because the leadership believed that a very small subset of the population, less than 1% of my country, should not have rights that other people have. The fact that they were willing to go to such lengths to deprive others of their rights just to get back at a small, peaceful group was astonishing.
We aren't talking about legions of vampires who need to eat people in order to live. We are talking 1 in 300 people who are just trying to get their prescriptions filled after work and now cannot without flying somewhere else.
I'm not even trans. But watching that Lord of The Flies style horror fest sent a chill up my spine. Society is only as strong as its weakest links, and when it breaks down, you don't want to be anywhere nearby when it happens.
When you say no longer deserve healthcare, what do you mean - full cut off of all healthcare, or just of “gender affirming care”? Like can they not go to a doctor because they have a sore foot? Or they just can’t go there to get bottom surgery and artificial hormones?
If it’s the latter, that’s not “depriving them of their human rights”. If it’s the former, which I’m 99% sure it isn’t, then yeah that’s crap. Places like Russia that are “banning” homosexuality etc are horrible, but that’s Russia and that’s the least of the problems. The western world doesn’t work like that.
It's the latter, for now. But those medicines aren't just used for trans people, they are used for all kinds of different illnesses. The fact that they didn't just strip it out of public healthcare, but private too, is a very bad sign.
Ok so it’s just fear mongering. No human rights are being denied, and no one is having their existence denied.
It actually does affect people when you can't get medications and when you are banned from school sports. Suicides skyrocket. People get harassed and stabbed because it emboldens people who would otherwise suppress their urges.
It would be in the same vein as if black people were refused drugs for sickle cell anemia. It puts people in a lower class when they are treated differently than the rest of the population. I know the same fear and hate the people in my state felt towards queer people, because I felt it myself decades before coming out.
No one is banned from school sports for being trans gender - they just have to play sports with people of their sex.
What about that stabbing has anything to do with the topic at hand?
Very few people declare themselves as anti-something. It's usually the mob that does that to individuals who say things that with sufficient amount of mental gymnastics can be made to sound like bigotry. This kind of thought terminating labels are the easiest way to get out of critical thinking.
And yet "anti-LGBT" was the term used by the comment above to describe the kinds of viewpoints that they're questioning why they aren't allowed. It's also the label used proudly by some of these groups themselves. Like the term TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) which was coined by the group itself, but was later claimed to be a slur by that very same group when they realized how the majority of people viewed them negatively because of it.
Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist is not the same thing as arguing about which brand of magic sky-daddy you subscribe to.
Why do you people keep talking about "the right to exist"? That's nonsensical. You either exist, or you don't. No one can take your existence away from you, it's not a right that can be granted by others.
What you are really talking about is the right to make assertions about the nature of human sexuality without being challenged to provide evidence for those assertions.
It's quite clear that you have a persecution complex. I can understand why, I'm sure you've had some unpleasant experiences with certain people that have caused you to adopt this defensive posture.
However, your comment is absolutely reeking of in-group and out-group bias. Everyone who is part of your group is being unfairly persecuted, and everyone who is not part of your group is a genocidal Nazi.
Personally, I am fully in favor of any and all expressions of sexuality, as long as the resultant behaviors and belief systems can be debated and analyzed like any other human behavior or position.
To the neutral observer, it's apparent that certain online communities cough are echo chambers that refuse to engage in honest discussion regarding LGBTQ topics and vigorously attempt to expel and shame those who do not adhere to the party line. This may be beneficial to your self esteem in the short run, but it ultimately does a disservice to your goals, assuming that you intend to enhance the acceptance of LGBTQ culture in our society moving forward.
Why do you people keep talking about "the right to exist"? That's nonsensical. You either exist, or you don't. No one can take your existence away from you, it's not a right that can be granted by others.
Because that's exactly the kind of "anti-LGBT viewpoint" you're asking about. You don't have to go far to find people claiming that being Trans is just a fad, or a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your children, or just mentally ill men, or a nefarious group trying to destroy young girls' wombs through dangerous surgery. The list goes on and on, and that's just the recent anti-Trans crusade. These are the kinds of views that they want to bring to social media sites and claim their free speech is being censored when they're punished for it.
And these views are having real-life consequences. It's now considered a sex crime for a man to wear a dress in Florida. For several years, transgender people were more likely to be the victim of a hate crime than black or Jewish people in the US, and there's been an increase of hate crimes against both of those groups as well in the past decade. 8 out of 10 trans women in the US will be victims of sexual assault. LGBT people are one of the most likely groups to be refused medical care, often under the excuse that "it goes against my beliefs." Some of these groups have even outright said that their goal is to "eliminate transgender people from public life, and eventually, existing entirely." Some have straight up called for a trans genocide.
These same kinds of arguments have been trotted out for gay and black men - "they're a bunch of pedophiles coming for your kids!" Or for lesbians - "they're just damaged women." Or my favorite, said by a 20-something year old coworker to a 16 year old lesbian coworker, "you're not a lesbian, you just haven't had a dick in you yet."
To the neutral observer, it's quite clear that certain online communities cough are echo chambers that refuse to engage in honest discussion regarding LGBTQ topics and vigorously attempt to expel and shame those who do not adhere to the party line.
I could not have said it better myself. Time and time again, science has shown that not only do LGBT people exist, but also how damaging the anti-LGBT rhetoric is. And yet, the "anti-LGBT" jam their fingers in their ears and scream about "woke indoctrination" before returning to their echo chambers. And eventually, that's what these kinds of "free speech" platforms become. Echo chambers for hatred, as these people harass and drive off anybody with opposing views. As a wise bartender once said after kicking out a skinhead just for being a skinhead, "You allow one Nazi, and you no longer have a bar. You have a Nazi bar. Because if you allow one, then they'll bring their friends, and eventually, they'll force everyone else out."
Also, you seem to have fallen for the "both sides" rhetoric they use to make themselves look innocuous while villifying their opponents. Stuff like the people encouraging those who who called in bomb threats to Target and threatened their employees for daring to have a line of Pride themed merchandise by saying it was protesting - that it was the same thing as people marching with signs against police brutality. You talk about the in-group and out-group bias of LGBT people while conveniently ignoring the exact same thing from the other side. Ignoring that these "anti-LGBT" people think they're being unfairly persecuted and anyone who disagrees with them is a "woke" communist or whatever.
Well, I can't say I agree with you, but I do appreciate your viewpoint and that you took the time to explain where you are coming from.
I wish you would try to be more welcoming to people who aren’t already in your camp, but at the end of the day I can't blame you for trying to protect yourself and other people in the LGBTQ community.
You don’t have to go far to find people claiming that being Trans is just a fad, or a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your children, or just mentally ill men, or a nefarious group trying to destroy young girls’ wombs through dangerous surgery.
But where in any of that is anyone questioning their "right to exist"? Nowhere. No one has ever questioned a trans persons "right to exist".
💯
I am curious why the allowance of anti-LGBT viewpoints is so controversial. As stated above, all of the basic rules of civility are still being enforced.
Because the people that are calling everyone else "transphobic" and "fascists" and "nazis" can't see that they're the ones being fascists by trying to censor all differing views. They can't handle having people with different opinions and viewpoints, often because they can't actually defend their odd views themselves, so they prefer to kick up a stink and have all different opinions banned.
I'll put it this way, there have been dozens of reddit alternatives over the years. Of those, pretty much every single one that advertised free speech has gone under from right-wingers, psuedo-nazi's etc.
The fact is, the biggest subset of people deplatformed off of reddit or any platform are truly just awful^1^ , regardless of what they claim about unfair moderation. And if you don't make it expressedly clear that you will not tolerate them, they will flock to your platform. Any claims of "free speech" even backed by "oh but nothing too awful please" is basically a dog whistle to them and they will flock to your platform.
If someone says something like this, they're either naïve about how this works or they're just saying it to maintain appearances. Either way, the platform is doomed.
[1] well maybe not recently due to api issues, but they're still a huge subset and will be the majority again eventually
This is typically done to allow transphobia. Misgendering people is not racist, a “slur,” targeted harassment, or an incitement to violence. So that’s usually what this kind of “free speech” exists to champion.
It's bit of a stretch to jump from misgendering to transphobia what ever that means. I have a relatively popular twitter page that's filled with pictures of me dressed as a woman so maybe that counts as evidence of me not being a transphobe but I still block everyone with pronouns in their bio because I think it's stupid. Especially coming from a culture with gender neutral pronouns.
Many people would be surprised how "intolerant" big part of the gay community is too. Nobody gets offended if your grindr says stuff like "no femmes"
Dressing as a woman does not inoculate one against transphobia, which means “dislike or strong prejudice against trans people.” Not sure why you block people with pronouns in their bio or why that’s stupid; and intolerance in the gay community is no reason to allow it to continue, there or anywhere.
I still don't get how misgendering makes makes one a transphobe. If you look like a woman I'll call you a woman but I do it not because I have to but because I generally try and be polite. However when we start policing language and demanding to be called this and that is when I sign out. It has nothing to do with not liking trans people. Atleast not in my case.
Misgendering someone is transphobic in exactly the same way that calling them the n-word is racist. It means you are prejudiced against that person for what makes them different — in this case it just sounds like you believe trans people don’t exist or are mentally ill members of their birth gender.
So yes, it means you are transphobic and you should self-reflect on improving that.
What?
Pronouns are not slurs in and of themselves, like the n-word is. They are perfectly fine to use and inoffensive in something like 97% of human interactions. The n-word is not.
How do they suddenly change to something as horrible as the n-word when you use the wrong one with someone you've never met before who outwardly presents as the pronoun you use, but internally has decided they are a different one?
There's a big problem where people use the term "misgendering" as equivalent to "intentional misgendering". One can be an honest mistake, the other is bigotry.
The n-word is not a slur “in and of itself” either; people can use it in non-pejorative situations… just as pronouns. The problem is the words being used to rob people of their dignity by invoking their minority status against them.
So yes, in that context, pronouns can be slurs against trans people.
No one is railing against “unintentional misgendering,” which happens to everyone. Though if you aren’t sure, non-gendered pronouns are a perfectly suitable alternative.
The n-word is not a slur “in and of itself” either; people can use it in non-pejorative situations… just as pronouns.
No, it's definitely a slur "in and of itself". You're fighting a losing battle here, you're 100% wrong.
Misgendering someone is transphobic in exactly the same way that calling them the n-word is racist. It means you are prejudiced against that person for what makes them different — in this case it just sounds like you believe trans people don’t exist or are mentally ill members of their birth gender.
You're taking the piss here, right?
Misgendering someone is in no way the same as calling a black person the n-word lol. It would be more like calling them a "tranny" is the closest equivalent, though no equivalent to the n-word exists.
Misgendering is, at worst, rude. That's assuming that they have told you their "pronouns" in the first place, and you chose not to use them. Rude, but in no way equivalent to calling a black person the n-word. It doesn't mean you're "prejudiced" against that person, it just means you either don't play along with coerced speech or their ideology, or you just don't care.
in this case it just sounds like you believe trans people don’t exist or are mentally ill members of their birth gender.
Are you okay? I'm pretty sure trans people exist. That's the weirdest accusation I've heard for a while. What are they holograms then?
No, as I said, your argument is that they aren’t really the gender that they say they are, but whatever gender you say they are. That’s claiming they aren’t actually trans, which is denying the existence of trans people… which is transphobic.
I don't agree with that.
It's not their gender I have issues with. You can claim to be anything you want and I'm fine by that. It's only when people start demanding special treatment when I stop being nice.
In my native language there is no even he/she pronoun. The word is "hän" and it's gender neutral. You can be male, female, FTM, MTF, non-binary or what ever and you're still called "hän". That is what inclusivity looks like. Progress is caring less about ones race and gender - not more.
It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not; the definition of transphobia does not depend on your agreement. Simply that you act transphobic, which you do. (And respecting other people as long as they’re nice to you is a really crappy way to act. People deserve respect for who they are even if they won’t gratify your ego.)
Luckily for queer people, progress can actually be made by caring about your sexuality and gender. Imagine if what you said was actually true, what an awful dystopia we’d be living in!
the definition of transphobia does not depend on your agreement
If you're going to go by definitions then you have to have the element of "fear" in there. You're scared of trans people - that's what the "phobia" part means. Are you saying that people that disagree with biological men participating in womens sport are scared of trans people?
Ask the groups of conservatives arguing that trans people are either just a trend, a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your kids, a cult trying to destroy young girls wombs or perform life changing surgery on children, or any of a number of other accusations that say that trans people don't exist, including the two they mentioned. These are the kinds of "anti-LGBT arguments" that they claim are being censored.
or any of a number of other accusations that say that trans people don’t exist
Can you actually show us some evidence to support what you're saying here? No one says "trans people don't exist".
There's a lot of types of bigotry and other general nastiness that are not covered by that.
Normally I would not be so nitpicky with language but if multiple admins were removed / quit over it, that's pretty suspect.
I would imagine a place shouldn't even need rules for that in the first place, but I understand people arent always the most kind they can be online.
I think also, a lot of what is called "bigotry" is often being subjectively identified (that is, one person thinks a thing is bigoted while another doesn't, certainly one cannot and should not always default to agreeing that every interaction is bigoted otherwise no interaction would be allowed anywhere), but I would imagine a vast majority of "bigotry" would still fall under the very vast "slurs racial or otherwise" or "targetted harassment" exceptions.
I dont know all the details, but its possible these admins may have been overly strict in removing content they considered bigoted to the point of being disruptive. I used to operate a forum back in the early 2000s (for reverse engineering video game software) and there was one moderator I had to remove because they were too strict in their deletion of content for a similar reason. Entire threads would be left graveyards and there was no way to discern the context.
I am only presenting my own speculation of course. What you're saying is also possible. The only way to know is to wait and see what happens. I think a big problem for those platforms is how quickly people bandwagon leaving when a small group decry a potential problem. It's like when people try a new game with a low player population, then call the game dead. Those people leave, and they tell everyone else the game is dead. So nobody really joins, except the bottomfeeders nobody else wants.
There's a screenshot elsewhere in the comments of him saying he was specifically removing transphobia and homophobia as punishable offenses from the rules because those rules "were being used to silence conservative voices." That's a pretty clear stance to me.
I am not exactly sure what I am missing?
Before, you could write "I don't like gay people" and get banned for it. Now you won't get banned for that post, unless you use a slur.
At least, that's my interpretation of it. Maybe it's a bit overblown, maybe it's a misstep by Jayclees, I dunno. I don't think a whole lot of people are really using Squabblr for conversational content in the first place, though. 99% of the platform is just memes. They should just stick to that, honestly. Nothing wrong with being a 9gag replacement.
If he wants to let people have dissenting opinions, then he should at least add a downvote mechanic to the platform. Otherwise it will be riddled with bad-faith arguments and brigading.
If he wants to let people have dissenting opinions, then he should at least add a downvote mechanic to the platform.
No, upvoting and downvoting needs to go away because it's just used to brigade and reinforce the circle jerk popular narrative.
All places like this should have are the options to report a post and to block/ignore/mute a poster. Those 2 options give everyone the ability to self moderate.
Good context, I didn't realize they don't have downvotes. That changes things a bit, the downvote is a fairly necessary mechanic for facilitating any type of serious discussion online.
But I'm still curious if anyone can rationally explain why saying "I don't like gay people" is worthy of a ban? Personally I would never say that, because it's an idiotic statement. But why is that unacceptable for someone to say?
There's a very simple response... "Why not?". And depending how they respond to that, they could definitely end up in banworthy territory. Or perhaps they might respond with an obvious misconception that could present an opportunity to educate someone on their ignorance.
But I’m still curious if anyone can rationally explain why saying “I don’t like gay people” is worthy of a ban?
Because that is an absurd reduction, and not based in reality. In reality, nobody got banned for saying: "I don't like gay people". What people were saying was so much worse. Hell, even describing the issue as homophobia is absurdly reductive. While I'm in no way saying homophobia isn't a thing anymore, it's much less of a hot-button issue among deplorables than it was 10 years ago. These days, they mostly focus on whether or not trans people exist, and how bad they're allowed to make trans people's lives before it constitutes "hate speech".
Make no mistake, this change in site terms will absolutely mean a rise in bigoted shit being posted there. That's the MO of bigots: they say and do awful things, then try to gaslight you into thinking that really, what they said and / or did was not that bad, and besides, it's free speech, innit? Managing an internet community is a never-ending fight against hordes of awful people who constantly try to turn that space into the next version of 8chan. You give Nazis an inch, next thing you know, they're taking Poland.
These days saying “biological sex exists” gets you banned on Reddit and even on some instances here going by the mod logs.
These days saying “biological sex exists” gets you banned on Reddit
No it doesn't. That is another absurd reduction. Are you intentionally lying, or do you actually believe your own hyperbole?
Nobody, and I do mean nobody, would dispute that "biological sex exists". That is a ridiculous straw man. What all of the people who are educated on the topic will say is that biological sex and gender are two different things. What bigots and morons hear is "Hurr durr biological sex doesn't exist".
Yes it absolutely does. No amount of calling it a straw man will change this. People absolutely are now saying that biological sex isn’t a thing - you only need to look at “assigned male/female at birth”. No one is “assigned” a sex at birth, it’s observed.
Try throwing gaslighting out there next too, that usually goes hand in hand with straw man.
Yes it absolutely does. No amount of calling it a straw man will change this.
Ok, so delusional enough to believe your own hyperbole, then. Got it. Straight up crazy with a persecution complex.
No one is “assigned” a sex at birth, it’s observed.
Yes. Biological sex is observed, and then written on the birth certificate. Or in other words, "assigned". Also, there are occasions when someone is born intersex, and the doctor chooses. Well documented cases of this happening.
Try throwing gaslighting out there next too, that usually goes hand in hand with straw man.
Well, sorry if my using the terms accurately offends you, snowflake. But if you're gonna say crazy, irrelevant shit, and then pretend that it's neither crazy nor irrelevant, you kind of have to live with the consequences of people calling you a gaslighter. Comes with the territory.
Yes. Biological sex is observed, and then written on the birth certificate. Or in other words, “assigned”.
It can't be observed and assigned at the same time. No one is assigned a sex. Even if a doctor doesn't write it on a birth certificate you're still the sex that matches your chromosomes. The terms "AMAB" and "AFAB" were literally made to deny that biological sex exists lol. They literally mean "the doctor chose that I am a male or a female despite what I actually am" rather than "the doctor observed that I am a male/female".
Well, sorry if my using the terms accurately offends you, snowflake.
Aww now you're getting upset and reverting to name calling lol. Definitely shows that you're winning the argument.
Also lol like clockwork with the intersex argument. Intersex people are a literal genetic deformity. They make up an insanely low fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of the population.
It can’t be observed and assigned at the same time. No one is assigned a sex.
So, your big argument against the existence of trans people is semantics? Really? I'm telling you what assigned means when people say "assigned male/female at birth". I didn't make up the term. It's one that is in common parlance. You're so smugly wrapped up in nits to pick that you're missing the forest for the trees.
The terms “AMAB” and “AFAB” were literally made to deny that biological sex exists lol
No. Incorrect. And stupid, and crazy. Nobody is denying that biological sex exists. I have no idea why you insist on pretending that they are.
Seriously, are you so insecure that you have to make up things to feel persecuted about? How pathetic are you?
They literally mean “the doctor chose that I am a male or a female despite what I actually am”
Again, biological sex and gender are two completely different things. Most of the time, they're related, but not always. Which is why someone with XY chromosomes and a penis who is assigned male at birth can have the gender identity of female. It happens. Denying that is denying reality. Of course, you seem to want to choose to invent some fantasy world and then get offended when reality doesn't match it, so I'm not sure why I'm even taking the time of day to explain this shit to you. It's not even going to make it through your thick skull.
Aww now you’re getting upset and reverting to name calling lol. Definitely shows that you’re winning the argument.
If describing you accurately is "name calling", then yes. I'm name calling. You're a snowflake. A stupid, crazy, immature snowflake. You can choose to not be one any time you'd like, but you seem to enjoy being one, so I'm not sure why you'd act all surprised when people call you out for it. Probably ties back to that whole persecution complex you've got. Poor little innocent victim. Aww.
Also lol like clockwork with the intersex argument. Intersex people are a literal genetic deformity. They make up an insanely low fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of the population.
Did I ever claim that they weren't? Why is it that you're ok with the idea that some intersex people exist while denying that some trans people exist? Is it because you can't see the differences with your eyes? Are you really so stupid that you believe that if you can't see it, it doesn't exist? Do you also believe that dyslexia doesn't exist?
The point is, we are insanely complicated organisms. Within the human spectrum exist vast amounts of variation. Some people are born intersex. Some people are born trans. Some people are born straight. Your stubborn refusal to see that says way more about you than it does about humanity.
So, your big argument against the existence of trans people is semantics?
Oh. My. God. You literally aren't reading a word I'm saying. Again with you guys it all comes back to "you're denying our existence!!" when literally no one is denying your existence. Saying "you're a male" when you identify as a woman isn't "denying your existence". Saying "Assigned Male At Birth" is, however, denying scientific and biological reality.
I’m telling you what assigned means when people say “assigned male/female at birth”.
I'm sure you don't even see how dumb this argument you just made is. "I'm telling you what it means, therefor that's what it means even if what I'm telling you is wrong" lol.
Nobody is denying that biological sex exists.
Apart from all those who are.
Again, biological sex and gender are two completely different things.
Debatable still. The current use of gender is as a feeling, whereas previously it was intrinsically 1:1 linked to sex. This is what people are talking about when they say "gender ideology" and how they disagree with it. You think gender is simply a feeling. I don't.
Of course, you seem to want to choose to invent some fantasy world and then get offended when reality doesn’t match it
Oh lord, the irony is too good here.
If describing you accurately is “name calling”, then yes. I’m name calling. You’re a snowflake. A stupid, crazy, immature snowflake.
Yeah we're done here. You're clearly not of the right mental capacity or frame of mind to have a logical discussion. Shocking.
You literally aren't reading a word I'm saying.
I've read everything you wrote. It's all profoundly stupid. You're trying to pretend that the phrase "assigned male at birth" means something it doesn't mean. You can look it up yourself, you know; you don't have to take my word for it. We live in an age of extreme information availability. So it's frustrating for me when you ignore all available evidence and cling to your stupid fantasy.
Again with you guys it all comes back to "you're denying our existence!!" when literally no one is denying your existence.
2 things: I'm not trans. Also, this entire comment chain started by you pretending that people were being banned because they pointed out that biological sex exists. When I pointed out that that was stupid and crazy and incongruous with reality, you doubled down. So how else am I to interpret your stance other than you love sticking your fingers in your ears, sticking your tongue out, saying "LALALA", and pretending that gender identity isn't separate thing from biological sex?
I'm sure you don't even see how dumb this argument you just made is. "I'm telling you what it means, therefor that's what it means even if what I'm telling you is wrong" lol.
I wasn't arguing with you in the same way that telling a schizophrenic that there are no demons around him isn't arguing. It's pointing out reality to a crazy person. If you're too dumb to look it up yourself, or too ideologically blind to believe the evidence you find, then it's not an argument. It's simply a person with way too much patience trying desperately to get you acquainted with reality.
Apart from all those who are.
Ok. I'll bite. I'm sure you'll have no problem linking me to any mainstream arguments that biological sex doesn't exist since you believe it to be so prevalent. I'm happy to read any evidence you provide.
Debatable still. The current use of gender is as a feeling, whereas previously it was intrinsically 1:1 linked to sex. This is what people are talking about when they say "gender ideology" and how they disagree with it. You think gender is simply a feeling. I don't.
It's not, though. Because on my side is practically the entire weight of the scientific community, and on your side is bigots and crackpots. Refer to my previous paragraph about why that's not a debate.
Because the left hates freedom of speech, and assumes that it just means racism.
How would you define freedom of speech?
Probably non-racist bigotry
Im not good with legalese, Im not pedantuc enough, and I know thats a trap because Ive been on the internet more than two days.
If you think a simple attempt at discussion is pedantic and/or a trap, maybe a discussion forum such as this one is not a place where you will find many friends. I was sincerely trying to understand your point of view but it seems you won't even try to justify it.
ANY internet platform that proclaims itself as a guardian of free speech is either overun by racists, xenophobes and the like or, at the very least, holds a significant number of them. There's a reason most 2000s internet platforms (e.g, Reddit) eventually dropped 'Free Speech' as a policy over time.
Found the conservative troll.
In case you are not though, this not about "the left". This is about ultraconservatives using "free speech" as an excuse to voice their hateful dribble while shielding themselves from any consequences. It is a dog whistle, and an obvious one at that.
I don't exactly agree. I don't think it needs to be political whether a person considers "free speech" equivalent to "racism" or not. But I do think it has to do a little bit with the currently magnified political divide.
I think youll have a hard time finding a person who considers themselves politically left that says "free speech = racism" I think that expectation is not fully understanding the context, and is rather reductive.
I think the issue comes down to what I mentioned before. Bigotry is a term that many people use as a shield to stop things they don't want others to say, even if it is truthful or factual information. Both sides of the political divide employ this tactic, but it is approached in different ways.
If a person makes a joke about XYZ religion for example, but a person of XYZ religion says that joke is bigoted, who is right? Who gets to decide what is considered bigoted?
The person making the joke may be doing so because they hate all religion, or XYZ religion specifically, or they may be a member themselves and think its funny. The member of XYZ religion may be overly sensitive to jokes or remarks, or they may be particularly prejudiced against the person making the joke. There are many reasons a person can claim a particular statement is bigoted, but there is no way to say one way or another is definitively correct. Because of this, any person that is chosen to decide this is going to be effected by their own prejudice and bias. And sadly, such bias has become magnified so much greater in recent years compared to the past.
Believe it or not, there used to be a time where you could have two people with opposite viewpoints talking to each other about said viewpoints, and they would walk away laughing and smiling, considering the other no worse than they did prior to the conversation. These days, people wont even listen to each other. It just becomes a screaming/silencing/downvoting/reporting war.
"Oh hey buddy, I don't think you should have the same rights as everyone else and you probably shouldn't even exist. Let's just laugh and smile and grab a drink, hahah"
Yeah... No.
Nice hyperbole. Is the post your responding to talking about that level of things at all?
Yeah... No.
It shouldn't even need to be said that isn't ok.
There's an issue though with people claiming that's happening when someone has disagreements in beliefs. A disagreement is not a denial of someone's right to exist. A challenge of a core belief is not a statement that someone doesn't deserve rights.
For example: Someone saying "I'm not okay with the use of puberty blocking medicine in treatments of dysphoria" is not the same as someone saying "We need to gather up all those mentally deranged ladyboy pedophiles and gas them", but they are often treated as equivalent through mental gymnastics. Like saying that puberty can greatly increase feelings of dysphoria, and feelings of dysphoria can lead to mental duress and suicide, so by the transitive property: disagreeing with the use of puberty blockers is equivalent to wishing trans folks to kill themselves, denying them the right to exist.
It's a multi step process to get from A to B amd it's a ridiculous assertion, but I've seen that back and forth literally happen. More than once.
The problem isn't free speech, the problem is "free speech".
We should call them "freeze peach" to avoid the constant "what's wrong with the free speech" arguments.
It's called thinking freedom of speech means freedom to be a fucking asshole.
Free speech means people have to hear things they disagree with, and that is violence apparently.
Judging by the number of downvotes my question received, looks like most people here prefer censorship over expressing ideas.
Yeah the irony of the people who call other people fascists just begging for censorship is hilarious. They don’t even see what they’re doing. They are the nazis in this situation. They’re the ones calling for violence against “terfs” and the murder of politicians and Supreme Court members.
Yeah, that's the Paradox of Tolerance. Short version: If you're being intolerant, why should I tolerate you?
To paraphrase Karl Popper: A society that values tolerance to the point of indulging those that oppose it will effectively be defenseless against that hate. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reason with them first, but we need to reserve the right to shut them up, by force if we have to.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Karl Popper, 1945, The Open Society and Its Enemies
I do hope that you see how that same exact idea applies to all sides though, right? It’s basically saying that Nazis are allowed to use force to shut up the other side as well.
I don't think the Nazis care about what I think they should or should not be allowed to do. They're going to use violence, whether or not I hold a gun or a white flag. If I say "No, force is bad!" they're going to say "Suit yourself!" and use it anyway. How am I going to stop them?
An ideology is worth only as much as the people defending it. If I am so concerned with the letter of the law if tolerance that I refuse to defend its spirit, I'll be condemned along with it.
That's the point of the paradox: If we deny ourselves the use of force, we're essentially conceding that right to them.
This an ideological conflict. We each believe the other is in the wrong, so whatever rules the other attempts to impose have no bearing on us because they're wrong. Hence: We should try rational argument first and hope to keep them in check by public opinion, but when that fails?
You can go stand in the middle and be proud of your enlightenend and nonviolent convictions. And when they next shoot up a gay night club or a black church, you can go and look the dying victims and their grieving loved ones in the eye and say "Aren't you glad these people get to freely encourage each others' bigotry?"
So when it comes to dealing with fascists, I'll listen to the guy that watched the rise of the original fascists, the failure of democracy, and took notes
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
(ibid)
The problem is you’re not even trying the rational argument, you’re going straight to censorship and in doing so you’re steeling their resolve and converting more people to be against you.
It’s like the “just stop oil” people - by doing their stupid protests that only hurt regular people they’re hurting their cause and turning people against them.
Oh I have tried the rational argument often enough. I still do, where I see the opportunity. I spend way too much time trying to convince people of my point of view even when I'm pretty sure there never was any hope in the first place.
But the type of hate speech and stochastic terrorism we're talking about "censoring" is beyond rational discourse. If "Don't use slurs, please" drives you to say "Fuck you, I'll hang with the bigots then", then tolerance can't have been that important to you.
You don't need to keep touching the stove to realise it's hot. Many platforms have tried the free speech angle and realised that it leads to an influx of hate, devoid of reason, and they'll either introduce some moderation or have all other people leave because nobody wants concentrated vitriol on their feed, except for those toxic enough to thrive on it.
We can debate rationally when both parties are being rational. If you can't "debate" without spewing hatred, then I shouldn't have to waste my time playing by rules you never gave a fuck about in the first place.
Again though - you’re deciding what is “hateful” and “rational”. You’re assuming that everything you believe is “right”. They do the same. They think you’re spewing hate by calling them Nazis and bigots and saying you want them to die (which is fair, since you are).
The difference is they’re not calling for you to be banned and your viewpoints censored. That’s you doing that.
I'm not going to stand by idly while they encourage each other with calls to violence. I don't want anyone to die at all, but they're the ones advocating for it. They started this.
We all just want to live our best lives. We only ask that you don't interfere with our enjoyment. When you do, we reserve the right to self-defense, the most natural right of all.
If you genuinely think that they're fine to call for the death of my people, but I'm wrong to want to silence that sentiment, then you're complicit in their violence.
Just leave us in peace. You can have your little circle of supremacy where you reaffirm how awesome you all are, as long as you don't bother anyone else. That's all we ask: Tolerance and respect for one another.
To use the current issue, no one is calling for violence against trans people though. That’s just something the trans advocate groups are pretending is happening so they can call for violence against “terfs”, as we’ve seen many times at women’s rights rally’s. It’s not the “terfs” bashing people, it’s the “allies” and “advocates”.
We only ask that you don’t interfere with our enjoyment
The irony is delicious. Biological women are asking that biological men don’t interfere with their enjoyment in sports, bathrooms, gyms, etc yet being told they’re transphobic nazi bigots.
No one is calling for the death of your people. This is a far left tactic as old as time - pretend and straight up lie that everyone else is attacking them so they can go on the offence themselves.
As I’ve said many times - if you find something offensive, ignore it and/or don’t engage with the person saying it. Block them. The answer to someone saying something you don’t like should never be to prevent them from saying it. That’s literal textbook fascism.
The phrase "free speech platform" sounds like a giant, enormous dog whistle. Which is a damn shame, because I used to enjoy that place, and now I'm not sure I will anymore... Don't want to jump to conclusions, but is there ANY self-described "bastion of free speech on the internet" that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?
I'm a white, heterosexual cis male in my 40s not living in the US, so this does not affect me in any way, shape or form directly, but it still feels just icky, unnecessary and tone-deaf. Guess I'll post photos of my succulents and my goofy dog just on Lemmy from now on, bummer...
I think it is a dog whistle , here in India there are people who openly talk of genocide , homophobia and what not and call it their right to speech and expression !
The "funny" thing is that the moment those people have power they don't have a problem going against free speech (see having books banned (in the US) or trying to stop people from voicing their opinion (Meloni in Italy))
It's all just exploiting the tolerance of the system in order to make it less tolerant That's why completely unchecked free speech is a bad idea as it will eventually lead in its complete demise
I mean that is literally what a right to free speech means, so they're not wrong.
That way yall can let nazi shit going and call it freedom of speech , murder is also freedom of expression in a way then ?
No, not at all. Murder is an action that is illegal. Saying something isn't, no matter how much you disagree with it. I don't like people saying racist stuff, but I'm certainly not of the belief that they shouldn't be allowed to say it.
Now imagine people holding hate speech conferences where they gather and talk about cleaning the population (a dogwhistle to genocide) I wonder if that is ok ! And the riots that happen coz of the radicalised masses ?
Aren't these called "mostly peaceful protests" now? Or is that only when it's your "side" that's doing the rioting?
No, because awful people congregate wherever they are tolerated.
When you have a "free speech" policy, you attract principled free-speech advocates who want to discuss issues rather than shouting down unpopular opinions, a few people who are well-behaved and intelligent but write about ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying, and a whole bunch of people who got banned everywhere else for being rude and disruptive.
The best-moderated such place that I've seen had a policy requiring politeness and high-effort posts, which kept out the third group.
The second group can be tough to tolerate. Sometimes they're interesting, sometimes they're a Holocaust denier who cites references, and you look up those references and they appear to be real papers written by real academics, and you know this is all wrong but you're not a historian and even if you were you don't have time to address every issue in this guy's entire life's work and you just wish the topic never came up. But you can't keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.
This is a great overview of the benefits and problems of free speech platforms without the immediate nosedive into the dogwhistle argument that seems to just be used as a thought/discussion stopper more than anything else lately.
I feel that it's vitally important that free speech spaces exist. Places to discuss "ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying" are important, but they aren't for everyone and they do by their nature offer spaces for "undesirable" people like holocaust deniers.
Exactly, and as long as the platform provides ways to ignore people like holocaust deniers, holocaust deniers should be allowed on the platform.
I hate racists, but I don't want all racists to be banned from Lemmy/Twitter/Facebook/etc. I want them to be able to share their opinions on there, in large part because I can then challenge their ideas and opinions. If I feel that they're being disingenuous, arguing in bad faith, and start name calling etc I can just block them and move on. That is how places like this should work IMO. That is what "free speech" advocates want.
I don't believe there should be ANY restrictions on what people can say on here as long as it isn't illegal. No one should be getting banned or censored for sharing their opinions IMO.
The thing is that you don't need to and shouldn't "keep them out". What you should do is just let people ignore/block/mute them.
How do you prevent such a platform to turn into an environment that is actively hostile towards the people they "nicely discuss" should be dead / subjugated / tortured / etc.?
Or do you think it is okay to drive out certain types of people? How is that still considered "free speech" if those people's voices will be completely missing from the platform?
You let people self moderate. Once you block a user you don't see them anymore.
It's free speech because they're allowed to post there. Them choosing not to because they can't handle other people being allowed to exercise their free speech is a them problem, not the platforms problem.
Considering the original movement for free speech it is rather cynical to think it's freedom to silence people. But that's what people are doing when they create an environment that is so hostile towards certain groups of people that these people won't participate. Freedom to communicate hate speech is creating an echo chamber, not a free speech platform.
The problem is when one side is calling everything they disagree with “hate speech” and banning everyone that even questions it.
Individuals blocking people isn’t “silencing” them. It’s not infringing on free speech.
It’s funny that you mention an echo chamber when this heavy handed Moderation and censorship is literally making one. When you only allow one viewpoint and ban all the others you’re literally making an echo chamber. You guys want an echo chamber, just one that echos your viewpoint.
I misread that as you describing your dog as succulent.
That was some awkward English, fixed it now :)
It's all good, I think I just needed to read more slowly!
Why bummer? It's a great place so far in my opinion. The people are so much friendlier here.
True, Squabbles just felt better suited than Lemmy to short, no context random posts and photos. Might be all in my head though :)
More good options is always a good thing.
Like someone else said in another comment, I'm sure everybody on the left agree with the concept of free speech. So IMHO the real question is, why is it the case that platforms advocating free speech attract right wingers and extremists?
Because the left does not approve of hate speech, which is what right wingers immediately rush to spew whenever they see freeze peach.
People confuse free speech with freedom to harass and driving people out. When 90 % of a site (as an example) are antisemitic rants and antisemitic memes Jews are actively driven out of the place. You actually make a place less free by allowing discrimatory content. People have to potentially hide their identity or have to endure constant hostility. In consequence you are removing their voices from the platform.
I guess most "people on the left" would agree that you can create such a platform for yourself and your buddies but do not call it "free speech" when in reality it just creates a venting platform for a certain type of people.
Not sure if serious......?
Yo dog, I gotta know. Where are you posting those succulent pics?! I've been missing r/Succulents since the blackout.
Mostly !succulents@midwest.social and sometimes !cactus@sh.itjust.works for cacti (hope I'm linking it correctly).
Thank you!
The thing is that you're just calling people that you disagree with "awful people" because they have different opinions. They also think you're awful for the same reason.
People need to get away from this idea that people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions and ideas. I'm all for completely unrestricted free speech. Let racist people spew their racist hateful garbage - but let people call them out on it. Let people try to change their mind. Let people show them exactly how they're being a piece of shit.
All you have to do is give people options to block/mute people and you can take care of it yourself. What I hate is when people call for censoring and banning of differing opinions on a platform level.
That is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that every single online platform that I know that describes itself as a "free speech platform/bastion/zone/whatever" gets sooner or later filled to the brim with people spouting vile, deplorable and often violent rhetoric.
I can discuss a lot of things and accept, understand or at least tolerate a lot of opinions differing from mine, but things like "black people are sub-human", "gays should be killed" or "preschoolers can be sexy"* are NOT in that group. And these types of comments are inevitably what naming your site a "free speech platform" attracts in my experience. I think there is no way to discuss (or even just utter) them in good faith, and yes, I do consider people holding such beliefs to be awful - it's not like I’m trying to use the term lightly or to denote folks who like different pizza toppings or TV shows than I do...
My point is that just because you can't tolerate them it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to be presented. Like I said - give people the ability to block/mute people and let them self moderate what content they interact with and see. You don't like people saying "black people are sub human" and don't want to have a conversation with them to point out why they're wrong etc? Cool, block them. Problem solved.
I will discuss anything with anyone. I'll happily debate a racist to try and show them why they're wrong and being a piece of shit. I'll debate a flat earther to show them the facts that prove the earth is round. If/when the racist starts name calling and being disingenous I'll call them out on it and if they double down I simply block them - that's what I've done in this very thread when some guy started name calling and becoming abusive when we were 6 comments deep each in conversation. I disagreed with their viewpoint, but I would never want their ability to give their viewpoint to be taken away. Once it became clear that they were not interested in an actual discussion and just resorted to name calling, I simply blocked them and "walk away".
That is what free speech advocates want. Just because you're offended by something it doesn't mean it should be censored or banned. As Ricky Gervais said:
"I want people to stop saying that joke's offensive. I want them to start saying "I found it offensive" because that's all that it is. You're just telling me how you feel about it."
>people are on the proprietary and centralized platform
>the proprietary and centralized platform does a bad thing
>people are moving to another proprietary and centralized platform
>another proprietary and centralized platform does a bad thing
I dont think most people care about whether something is centralized or not. I definitely dont. I am on Lemmy because it is afaik the biggest alternative to reddit with the most content. If there was a centralized version with more and better content I would go there
Seems you're kind of a leech though, that just wants people to keep creating these sandboxed for you to play in. Federated means they are less likely to have to do all this work to rebuild in the future.
But as long as you get yours, right?
The vast majority just wants to browse the place with all the relevant content so that they don't miss out on current events. No need to resort to calling people leeches when the vast majority never even comment, let alone post.
honestly my experience starting this month is we're already over the critical mass of users. there's still stuff that isn't here that I've seen yet but I don't run out of content and get bored, so reddit's already obsolete.
You’re not wrong, but that person shouldn’t be chastised for expecting a place that bills itself as being like Reddit to uhh… be like Reddit.
The lemmy federation should try to be something fundamentally different from Reddit, given the indisputable fact that it’s form led to its downfall like other aggregators before it.
Federation just means it's confusing to sign up. I don't care if I am a leech. I just want content and the ability to use my preferred app to get it.
Most of them seem to be moving to discuit, another centralised platform, Lol
This seems to be the reason for the change (jayclees is the creator and admin of the site):
https://ibb.co/48hY8fm
It's always telling when people describe a minority as a "political movement" rather than... people
It’s also telling when people frame any and all discussion around anything LGBT+ as “transphobic” and “trying to kill trans people”.
The current gender/trans ideology isn’t just scientific fact that has to be followed and believed. People should be allowed to disagree and question it without being censored and banned.
That seems to be the point the creator is making - they didn’t make it to be a circle jerking safe space for only the far left “progressives”. They made it for everyone to be able to talk about their beliefs without being censored and banned, but one ideological group absolutely doesn’t want that.
That's the point OP was making when they said LGBT+ isn't political. LGBT+ isn't an ideology for people to share "beliefs" about. It will exist whether or not you believe in it, and normalizing people who say I don't believe in it is essentially denying the LGBT+ person's identity. It's ok to say you don't understand, or even like it, but to simply say "you're making up your gender identity" is wrong and harmful.
The current LGBTQ+ ideology is a political ideology though. It’s not just facts and it’s not about “existing” like people try to make it out to be.
The current trend of “a 3 year old boy that plays with barbies is trans so should be put on puberty blockers” is an ideology, same with “trans women have no physical advantages over biological women”, same with trying to teach 8 year olds about anal sex and masturbation. None of these things have anything to do with people “existing”.
The ideology that says simply saying you’re a woman makes you a woman and therefore are entitled to women-only places and things like scholarships and awards is what most people are against. No one cares if a 25 year old biological male wants to put on a dress and wear makeup and call themself Jane. Most people will even play along with your new pronouns. People shouldn’t be forced to by law though, and that’s another of the big issues people have.
Tl;dr - being trans isn’t political. Pushing the current trans beliefs and ideologies like gender identity, self ID, and “trans women are women” is.
How are medically approved operations by doctors an ideology? As long as the parents and their doctors have identified an issue they need to address, and the procedure they decide on is safe, reversible, and is known to make the child's life happier, who are you and I to stop them?
That's conservatives making it political. Claiming your own gender identity is not political, it's a natural human behavior to self identify. Please explain how you can say trans people can exist while at the same time if they try to self-identity then they're being political? There's no "conservative gene" that prevents you from choosing your gender identity (i.e. Caitlyn Jenner). Just acknowledging transgenderism exists is completely apolitical. If you see it as "pushing gender identity" that's your problem.
I didn't once mention medically approved operations? If you're talking about doing them on kids then that's a whole other issue.
And here lies the problem - parents pushing their ideology on to their kids. Also what "trans surgeries" are "safe and reversible"? None. Cutting off your male genitalia is not reversible. A hysterectomy is not reversible. Cutting off your breasts is not reversible (though you can at least try and make up for it with breast implants). Puberty blockers are not fully reversible, and most countries are now acknowledging this. You simply cannot stunt someones physical (and mental) growth and have it just resume years later as if nothing has changed. There are zero long term studies on puberty blockers. There are however known long term issues with them.
Not as a different gender/sex it's not. It has only become a thing very recently, where simply saying "I'm a woman" now means you're a woman, no questions asked.
That's not at all what I said. Pushing for being able to let "Self ID" give you access to the opposite sexes spaces and sports and awards and other things is the political part. Trans people existing has nothing to do with that. The issues with self ID are that men who have literally done nothing to transition can now go in to womens events/spaces without question. A great example is the weightlifting competitions where gender Self ID was allowed, so a anti-self id man entered and just annihilated the competition as a protest to show how stupid it is. The only requirement for him to enter the womens competition was for him to tick a box saying he's a woman.
Transgender and gender ideology are different things. Transgender is "I am the other gender to what I was born as". Gender ideology is "I can be whatever gender i want, whenever i want, and can change gender a thousand times during the day, and I should get all of the rights afforded to whichever sex/gender i call myself at the time". They're not one and the same.
No, I don't approve of irreversible medical surgeries on people under age of 16, but that's not a thing in any case. It's in response to your comments about 3 year olds getting puberty blockers (which is also not a thing) in which case it is temporary, reversible, and typically starts at 8 (10+ for boys).
My child is sick, feeling depressed, I go to the doctor, they discuss possible issues, and through preset, clinical guidelines, they decide that treatment for gender dysmorphia is an option. Again, reversible, safe treatments like puberty blockers and therapy that help prevent children from self-harm and further confusion about their identify. It's not like they're passing out puberty blockers like candies for funsies and doing this for fun.
I'm not even talking about transgender surgeries, which happens at 18+ of age.
Say's who? If one wants another to call them by another thing, who are we to dispute that? Gender CAN be fluid. Your biological sex that you were born with hasn't changed, it's their GENDER. Gender doesn't have to match your sex. And transgenderism has been a thing since ancient times. Have you considered that maybe more people are coming "out" recently because they're feeling safer to express themselves?
There have been exactly 0 assaults by transgender women entering a public bathroom. And your concerns about a troll entering sports competitions is going to out-weight all of the self-harm and suicides committed by people suffering from unaddressed/repressed gender identity issues?
Show me one time where that has happened and it has harmed someone else by doing it. And again, if they want to change their gender once or a thousand times, how is it any of your business? Besides sports competitions and bathrooms, I mean.
Having empowerment over their gender identity is an important part of being a transgender person, denying them that right is inhuman and cruel. Gender ideology, or whatever you want to call it, is simply (in my opinion) expressing a sense of safety and freedom to others that want to identify as something else from what they were born as. And believe it or not, this can happen whether you are conservative or liberal - it is absolutely a HUMAN desire, not a political one.
Look, I understand that if I call someone that looks and talk like a women a she, but wants to be called a man, there's going to be confusion. But what do I lose out of my day if they simply said "sorry, I'm actually a he" and I respect that moving forward?
That thing that never happens yet still happens isn't actually happening? lol Also why did you choose 16 as your cutoff? They're still legally, physically, and mentally a child at 16.
Not fully reversible, and the sooner your "side" acknowledges this the better. Governments all over the world are recognising this now and are removing all mentions of "fully reversible" from their documents and legislation, and many are now outlawing it altogether because there are literally no long term studies done to prove that they are reversible. The difference between 3 and 8 or 10 is completely irrelevant. A 8 year old has no better understanding of gender identity than a 3 year old, they lack the mental capacity for understanding this and they absolutely cannot understand the life long repercussions.
Sick? Gender dysphoria/dysmorphia doesn't make anyone "sick". You're also overlooking all of the places that hand out diagnoses and scripts for drugs after a literal 10 minute phone call, intentionally so most likely.
Apart from when they don't, like how you yourself even said in this same post that you're ok with it at 16 years of age. What is it, 18 or 16?
Again, this is the problem - you can call yourself whatever you want. I. Don't. Care. Simply calling yourself a woman however should not mean that you now have access to women's sports and women only safe spaces like gyms and doctors etc.
Come on mate, you don't even believe these lies.
The fact that even post gender affirming surgery the suicide rate doesn't decrease among transgender people says all that needs to be said. You're basically saying "let womens sports be taken over by biological males because if you don't the transgender people will kill themselves". I believe this is what you guys call "gaslighting"?
I literally just did with the weightlifting example. A woman lost out on a prize because a man chose to be a woman so he could enter the competition. Self ID lets that happen. He did it to stop another self ID'ing transgender person from winning, to show how stupid the rule is. If you want other examples just look at the women that get raped in bloody rape crisis centres and even prisons by self id'ing males.
Sports competitions and bathrooms etc in this situation are the only thing I am against. I don't care if you want to change your gender 1000000 times a day. It doesn't affect me. I don't care. As I've said many times, I care when it affects other people, such as in sporting competitions and bathrooms (and children of course).
You're not going to get any disagreement from me though, this is what I keep saying. I have nothing against transgender people. Everyone can live their life identifying as whatever the hell they want, I don't care. I care about fairness, safety, and scientific facts though, so when you identifying as something else encroaches on any of that, that's when we have a problem.
Finally some sanity on this site.
❤️
FYI one of these things that never happen happened again:
https://reduxx.info/exclusive-trans-woman-confronted-by-mother-in-swimming-pool-locker-room-is-a-convicted-pedophile/
Indigenous peoples have acknowledged a “third gender” aka non binary for centuries - way before colonization.
How can you say self identifying in regards to sex/gender is a recent ideology when it’s been part of human history for centuries?
Sounds like bland, generic, thoughtless conservative nonsense to eliminate other perspectives (especially when you discount them as new despite existing for centuries)
It hasn't though. People are now using absurd leaps to try and pretend that it has been around for centuries, but it hasn't. Got some links to these "third gender" stories?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-two-spirit-means-native_l_62aa0b3ce4b06169ca93c14e
https://www.ihs.gov/lgbt/health/twospirit/
https://www.ncai.org/policy-research-center/initiatives/Pruden-Edmo_TwoSpiritPeople.pdf
https://www.theindigenousfoundation.org/articles/the-history-of-two-spirit-folks
https://www.firstpeople.us/articles/the-two-spirit-people-of-indigenous-north-americans.html
https://asandersgarcia.humspace.ucla.edu/courses/earlyamhistory/2020/06/12/understanding-gender-roles-in-native-american-communities-using-computational-analysis/
lol "two spirit = third gender"
Those links say that the indigenous people used "two spirit" to refer to homosexuals. That's not at all like "self identifying".
Genuine question, what would you expect people who were born intersex to do? How would you know whether or not someone is intersex?
Edit: They do exist.
Chances are you and I will go our entire lives never coming in contact with an actual intersex person. Your children probably won’t either. Their children also won’t. Your parents wouldn’t have either. Statistically they’re just basically not a thing.
What would I have them do in regards to what exactly?
It is scientific fact; at least every major medical organization in the US is in total agreement about what you refer to as “gender ideology,” and what we call the existence of trans people.
“Just asking questions” about it is as disingenuous and false as “just asking questions” about evolution. If you truly believe trans people exist and deserve to be respected you wouldn’t feel the need to ask these questions.
But yes, the founder chose anti-trans concerns above trans concerns. LGBT people will leave and the platform will become a conservative circlejerk. You have that part right at least.
You've really jumped deep into things by assuming what the person you're responding to means isn't scientific fact is the actual existence of trans people. They could, but they were woefully vague.
Most people I've interacted with who have misgivings are more focused on things like the insistence that there are no differences between afab and amab bodies, and therefore trans women athletes should be allowed to compete against afab athletes.
That's a currently "unallowed to challenge" topic that pretty much immediately gets you labelled transphobic, but here's the rub: female athletes doping with testosterone to achieve higher muscle mass is something that is banned from sports competitions, so why does it matter whether it was artificially obtained via pill or naturally by the fact that they had years of body and muscle development as male before transistioning?
There's no good solution to this problem, but the fact that anyone who brings it up gets labelled as transphobic is ridiculous. It's not inherently denying trans people anything to discuss it (that has more to do with the person discussing it than the topic itself). For me it's an attempt to ensure that all female athletes afab trans or other are on an even playing field, ideally so people have less excuse to easily dismiss trans athlete achievements.
I don't think this is vague in the slightest:
I know no person interested in trans liberation that also talks about "gender/trans ideology."
I find sports misgivings a red herring with regards to trans liberation. To me, it feels like asking someone to be less racist, and hearing them respond "well what about Black people in sports? What about white athletes' feelings? How do we determine if an athlete is white enough to compete against other whites?" The entire notion is wrong-headed to begin with. Yes, if we include trans people in sports, sometimes they might win. What's so bad about trans people winning at sports?
In any case, clearly the person I was responding to was not talking about this.
Here is the thing when it comes to sports, there are usually two main divisions in most sports, the best of the best league, and the women league. In most sports there is technically no rule against women playing in the best of the best leagues, but they are just at so much of a disadvantage it is almost unheard of for them to be able to compete at that level. The only reason that women only sports exist is to allow people with that biological disadvantage to compete professionally against others with the same disadvantage. It's a league that's sole purpose is to allow women to be competitive against other women because the men are just so much better.
It might sound like I'm bashing women's sports, but I'm not. I'm glad women have an avenue to compete at pro levels, because without women only sports they would not.
I have no problem with anybody trying to compete in the best of the best league, men, women, trans, black, white, etc. But when it comes to leagues specifically limited to give those in the league a fair competition, we shouldn't be opening that up to those who don't have the disadvantage that defines the league. This applies to women leagues, the special Olympics, and other limited leagues.
I know this, I just don’t think it matters. Our a priori assumption must be trans people should be included everywhere as much as possible, just like Black people or Jewish people. Fairness will adjust to our expectations, so everything will feel fine in the end, just as it did when we allowed other minorities to compete in leagues they were formerly barred from.
How can it not matter? You have a sport built around the idea of fair competition to a genetic physical weakness, and you think we should just throw that all away? I'm not sure why you are bringing race and nationality into this discussion, that's never been a race based disadvantage that we decided we needed to design sports around.
I agree, but I think sports falls under "not possible" because they don't meet the requirements for the women's league. I have no problem with a trans league, or they are more than welcome to compete in the best of the best league. I don't think they should be competing in women's sports, it's unfair to all biological women athletes who compete against other biological women athletes.
And if you want to compare it to race, where the idea of a race segregated sport would be super controversial, let's just get rid of women's sports all together. Women are equal to men, right? They can do anything a man can do, right? What are we pretending women aren't equal by putting them in their own sports leagues? Let's just get rid of all women's sports, let them compete directly with the men, and may the best win.
I’m fine sorting people by weight classes or hormone levels. But gender is not a useful way to do that and hasn’t been for years. The Olympics, for example, tests your hormone levels and not what your natal sex was or what your genitals look like.
But ultimately I just don’t think sports matters more than peoples’ rights. So if we have to abolish gendered sports, especially below the ultra-professional level, I’m fine with that.
And yes, people did indeed claim certain races had advantages in sports and pointed to science about muscle density to support their theories. They would consider themselves well-justified by Black people dominating certain sports. It is the same with trans athletes.
So you are for getting rid of women's sports, special Olympics, and everything in that realm and just letting everyone compete as people of the human race?
What rights? There is no right to compete in stuff you are not eligible for.
So you are fine with women essentially never being competitive in sports? Personally I think it's great they have their own league, because otherwise there wouldn't really be women in sports.
Except that they are competing in the open to everyone category, even if some races had an advantage, that's legal in an open to everyone category. Women's sports are not open to everyone, only to biological females who don't take performance enhancing substances. Again, if you want to essentially remove women from sports by pretending biological males and females are the same, that's your grave to dig.
Race isn't the same as gender, I'm hoping you realize that. In today's world, gender is more a state of mind than anything else, race is not. I can choose to become the opposite gender, I can't choose to be black as a white person.
If trans athletes want to compete in sports, compete in the open to everyone league, don't try to compete in leagues you don't qualify for. Women's sports, if they are to still exist, are for biological and non testosterone taking females only.
As I said, below the ultra-professional level, yes. Inside the ultra-professional level, gender tests are already not used to differentiate people into competition categories so they've already solved this problem. Read what I said in my previous post.
The point is it didn't used to be. This was because people had research at the time showing that Black people had "higher muscle density" and other nonsense pseudoscience that they used to bar them from the "open to everyone categories." Which, at the time, were not open to everyone, but only white people.
Since you are just not understanding this: the same arguments used to prevent Black people from competing (they would dominate certain sports, their inclusion would make white people feel bad, their existence is basically the same as taking performance enhancing substances) are literally the same ones used to prevent trans people from competing. We decided those problems didn't matter, and now, yes, Black people do win in certain sporting fields more. But everyone's decided that's okay.
Literally the same thing will happen with trans people. I know you have this weirdly deep-seated need to believe in the fairness of sports, but fairness is a construction we apply to sports, not something inherent in them naturally. If we include trans people as much as possible, it will still feel fair, even if trans people (gasp) even sometimes win.
Gender is not "more a state of mind than anything else," any more than sex (or race) is. Trans people are their actual genders, they aren't pretending to be a man or woman for the day, any more than a Black person is pretending to be a white person or vice versa.
Frankly, as I said at the beginning of this discussion, the entire sports argument is stupid though. The rights of an entire minority (yes, their rights) shouldn't hinge on whether or not they can compete in sporting events, and every time trans liberation is brought up people whine "but what about fairness in sports?"
You should find other stuff to care about, because the amount of trans athletes is vanishingly small and the amount of ink spilled on debating their inclusion with sports totally out-of-proportion to the "problem" itself.
Exactly.
The NFL isn’t a male league for example - it’s an open league. How many women have ever even made it to the tryout stage? One. A kicker. She didn’t come close to making even a training squad.
Sam Kerr, the best women’s soccer player on earth, wouldn’t even get close to making a men’s pro team. The world beating women’s USA team, winners of the past 2 world cups, got annihilated by an under 15s boys team.
Sex matters in sport, not gender.
The issue isn't just that they might win, it's that they will naturally dominate in competitions where biological makeup matters.
If you don't see how that's not fair I don't know what to tell you. There are hard rules in biology that don't mesh with gender identity politics, and there's no way around that.
Fair to whom?
Lots of people were worried about Black people dominating certain sports. And, as it turns out, Black people do dominate certain sports. Is that unfair to white people?
No. People are just different. Fairness adjusts and we get over it.
So too here.
How do biological women adapt to someone like Lia Thomas? Are they just going to magically all just grow another foot in height and increase their bone density and muscle mass to levels that women can’t naturally get?
You’re right, it’s not vague at all - it’s not denying trans people exist in any way. Trans people existing isn’t an ideology, so questioning the current trans and gender ideology has nothing to do with trans people existing or not. You’re jumping to conclusions because you want to dismiss any opinion you don’t agree with, and currently the “that’s transphobic!” line is basically a get out of jail free card in that way. Just call someone transphobic and get them banned so you don’t have to have your opinion challenged, create that echo chamber you want so badly.
Your response to the sports issue of “what’s so wrong with trans women winning women’s sporting events” says it all. “Who cares about biological women, the feelings of trans women matter more.”
Trans women can compete with men. If there is no physical or biological advantage for males then why do they need to compete with the women? They can compete with the men and should do just fine.
Lia Thomas is all that needs to be pointed out for why your ideology here is wrong. 500+ ranked man……instantly #1 ranked woman. Breaks all the women’s records. Where are the trans men swimmers dominating the men’s division in swimming? Or in track and field? Cycling? Anywhere at all?!
Bingo.
No one denies trans people exist, but this is how the “progressives” that want males competing with females in sport and using female-only services frame any and all questioning of their ideology and motives.
I don't agree. I have A LOT of questions about gender identity to which I can't hypothesize answers because as a cis/het person I have no idea what it means and what it feels like being transgender, and I grew up in a time and a place where nobody ever talked about gender identity. The only way I can educate myself is by asking questions. Now I know a lot of people in the LGBTQ community are kinda fed up answering this kind of questions, and with good reason (cf. the "just asking questions" posture of anti-trans people). But some of us are being honest at just asking questions.
Those aren't the kinds of questions the OP was talking about; their dogwhistle about "trans/gender ideology isn't scientific fact" shows that they are indeed the kind of anti-trans person who is "just asking questions" to harass trans people.
If you have legitimate questions there are many excellent resources on the Internet and even in Lemmy itself where LGBTQ people will be happy to chat with you, if you approach them in a respectful manner :)
Gender ideology is not scientific fact. Gender as it is now know has literally no basis in science. Sex is biological reality. Gender is now a “feeling”.
I'm happy to inform you that gender is also a scientific fact: https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-sex-and-gender/ It literally has a basis in science and you can both study it and perform science on it!
That's disingenuous and your own link doesn't support what you are saying. The link demonstrates that gender to refer to self-identity is both recent and an artificial distinction. The science behind transgenderism is far from settled as much as people would like it to be. We don't even know what causes it.
Oh no… it does say exactly that and the science is indeed settled. There’s no “artificial distinction;” science says gender and sex are indeed different. Unless of course you can link a reputable scientific organization that disagrees with that overwhelming consensus?
We don’t know what causes most cancers either. That doesn’t mean they can’t be studied scientifically.
I didn't say it shouldn't be scientifically studied. It definitely should be, especially the extremely high rates of comorbid mental illnesses in trans/non-binary people.
The article you linked states that gender is now commonly considered a social construct rather than tied to your biological sex. They are making the distinction so that there is no confusion when reading their papers.
The science is not settled, they are conceding that the common use of the term now has a different meaning than it did in the past.
The science is indeed settled. Asserting once again it's not or that trans/nb people are mentally ill is both scientifically inaccurate and morally wrong. Unless, of course, you have literally any source claiming otherwise?
I thought not.
Your own link say says that gender is a social construct now. They're saying that there is literally no science involved, there is no basis in scientific fact there.
That's not "scientific fact". For something to be scientific fact it has to have scientific facts supporting it.
From that article:
"self representation" is how you feel. It's a feeling. That's not scientific fact. Going "we acknowledge that society now treats gender as a new thing separate to sex" isn't the same as it being a scientifically proven fact.
I’m really not seeing the logic here, so called "feelings" are scientific facts and we do studies on them all the time. Is hunger not a feeling? Same thing with self-representation. Those aren’t nebulous concepts. Those are well-established scientific facts. Gender is an important part of self-representation and from all indications, one people have very little control over.
So why are there people changing their "gender identity" multiple times a day?
Show me a scientific study that has found any existence whatsoever of "gender identity" through science. The very article linked here says it's a social construct. Social constructs are not "scientific facts".
Why do you guys always always jump straight to “you’re trying to deny trans people exist”? No one is saying trans people don’t exist. people are, however, opposed to people telling preschoolers that if they like stereotypical opposite sex things that they’re trans and should choose a new name and wear the other genders stereotypical clothes. It’s indoctrination.
If a kid still believes in Santa clause, telling them they’re trans and giving them praise and letting them choose their own name etc is forcing your ideology on them. They don’t know any better. All they know is an adult is telling them something so it must be true. Again - they believe in Santa clause and the tooth fairy. They don’t have the mental capacity to understand these things. They don’t have the mental capacity to be making permanent life altering decisions.
This whole “just asking questions” bullshit is just a way the “progressives” try to weaponise anyone questioning their beliefs and ideologies.
If lgbtq people can’t stand seeing people have different opinions to them then they should leave. They shouldn’t be trying to get everyone else banned.
This is totally nonsense. No one is "indoctrinating" children... except those who claim that children can't be trans. I would encourage you to swallow your pride and your preconceived notions and actually talk to trans people, many of whom report knowing exactly who they were at the first age they were aware of gender.
Anyway, the rest of your point is basically hateful bullshit. If you can't deal with LGBT people and our opinions, you're the one that should get out. We frankly don't need you.
When people say this they mean that children don't have the mental capacity to make that life changing decision. Again - kids believe in santa clause, the easter bunny, and the tooth fairy. They are extremely easily influenced and will believe what their parents tell them to a fault. If you tell a kid they're trans because they like the colour pink as a boy or blue as a girl, they're gonna believe you. That is the indoctrination people are talking about.
Are there kids that actually have gender dysphoria? Sure. They're the extreme minority of the kids that are currently trans though, because they don't even understand gender let alone "gender identity". Even teenagers aren't mentally developed enough to be making life altering decisions, which is why we don't let under 18 year olds get tattoos, drink, vote, etc. If you accept that these restrictions need to be in place for children, how can you be ok with giving them life altering drugs and surgeries?
Sigh....there's the usual "transphobic" type dismissal/attack used to try and stop any and all discussion of differing viewpoints.
I can deal with LGBT people, I have no issues with them at all as I've said many times. I've explained why I don't, and what I do have problems with. Ironic that you say "We frankly don’t need you." because if that were true you wouldn't be constantly trying to force your beliefs on me.
"Let's have a reasonable rational debate about whether certain groups should have the right to exist! If you're a member of one of these groups, please be respectful to the people who say you should be exterminated!"
"Alright. Compromise: We only kill half of you."
honestly reading this, it just sounds to me like he isn't cut out for community management. It is stressful and hard sometimes, so I get it, but he's going to kill his own site doing this. I did wonder about this before - it seemed like to me he regularly made changes based on feedback on a whim, and these changes were often rushed without much thinking. Needs to know when to pass the baton elsewhere and stick to development, but alas...
The last comments also speak to someone who's probably hiding some contrarian views of his own.
Shame.
cOnSeRvaTiVe vOiCeS aRe bEiNg sILeNcED!!
i.e. boohoohoo, I'm facing consequences for my hate speech.
It's the engineers doing graphic design but worse: engineers speedrunning social sciences.
Allowing bigots just means you are one. Rip squabbles.
As a wise bartender once said, "If you allow one Nazi, you no longer have a bar. You have a Nazi bar."
Thinking everyone you disagree with should be silenced and not allowed in is literally what fascists do. It's what the nazis did. How very "progressive" of you.
Everyone should be allowed to express their opinions and beliefs. Everyone, no matter how much you disagree with them. The onus should be on you to simply not engage with any that you don't want to, be that by simply ignoring them or by using the built in tools of the platform like blocking/ignoring. You're literally asking for censorship of speech.
This is a private site not the government. Private entries get to decide what goes as long as they aren't harming a protected class. Macy's e aren't a protected class.
You gave carpet bombed this thread with your fascist and bigoted posts. Absolutely pathetic. You're what these sites don't need. Go back to truth social.
Being against censorship = nazi fascist bigoted views now?
Goddamn you guys are so far gone it’s not funny. You don’t even see that you’re the fascists in this situation.
Is the person you're responding to not also using their free speech?
It's ironic, because you're implying that they shouldn't make comments on their thoughts about this, because the thought of censorship upsets you.
Don't forget that complaining and critiquing are also under the idea of free speech, even if you disagree with the other person.
Show me where I said that they shouldn’t be allowed to make comments on their thoughts.
No idea how people think this is a valid way to talk about people literally fighting for their right to simply be present in public spaces without people attacking their very being.
Grand opening, Grand closing
If true: Well, that's the end of that platform I guess. Shame, I liked that there were so many alternatives cropping up.
I guess there wasn't enough Squabbling.
They also removed the admins who disagreed with this decision. Jayclees and Daniel are the only "staff" left now. This is a really bad look for them.
Literally why would you go to this website over Reddit. It has all the same problems and is just more boring.
"Free speech" is just a dog whistle and gas lighting now. Unless it's fully allowing illegal content, then it's not free speech, which is obviously sane to not allow. That's why its a silly term to throw around in the first place.
You're not wrong, but I remember when free speech was more of a liberal issue. Freedom for artistic expression and all that. Freedom to curse in music, freedom to create and view porn etc.
How is this gas lighting though?
I don't think people really know what gas lighting is :p.
Relatedly, whether you understand the term or not, go watch the movie Gaslight where it comes from. Great film.
I'd go watch the movie, but my partner says that I'm too sick and clumsy to get out of bed right now. I don't know where I'd be if they weren't around to keep me straight, always reminding me of things I've said and done when I have moments of brain fog.
You wouldn't go watch the movie, you've never even seen a movie.
Where the jewels?!
I don't necessarily agree with the use of the term in this context, but I took it to mean that it's gaslighting in the sense that when you call it out as a dog whistle meaning "you can now be a POS on our platform", people can respond with stuff like "Wow, so you're anti-free speech? Do you hate America? Why do you want to censor people?" And shit like that, which is gaslighting IMO
Everything is gaslighting when you don't actually know what gaslighting means but just want to use the latest term all your liberal friends use.
I don't understand what I'm looking at here? Some reddit-ish place is declaring free-speech then they immediately backpedal and say racist stuff doesn't count, and also some admins left? So what is the material difference between a "free speech platform*" and lemmy which also doesn't allow racist stuff?
It sounds like they’re going to be allowing anti-LGBT hate speech, which was formerly a ban-worthy offense on their platform. Reddit and most Lemmy instances have rules against this, so I imagine Squabblr is going to attract the same sort of people that like using Truth Social.
In my experience forums that allow everything else will basically attract all the trans-, queer- and homophobes, misogynists and sexists.
That's true.
Squabblr*
They had a mid 2000s rebranding.
Removng vovls s col nd trndy!
No doubt it will be called sqbblr in a month
Voat any% speedrun WR (glitchless)
They're currently at level 4 (arguably maybe level 2) of the content moderation speedrun: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/
Next step is for them to start dealing with DMCA takedowns.
Sounds like they are going to speed run what happen with Voat.
I wonder why of all bad things they make an exception specifically for racism and not something else like pedophilia for example.
One is illegal in every civilized country and one is not
I left a month ago because it was clear they were going this way. Glad I'm here
I remember trying out Voat. They weren't even hiding their love for certain words.
I'm really confused by this direction? The admin seemed... nice, and all of the users were "let's all be friends and be postivive x!" type people. Not exactly the place for "free speech" dog wistle folks. He's just going to alienate his entire userbase, I don't understand the point.
I hope people know that us all having instances would always be better than anything centralized elsewhere. 1) I can delete all my posts if I want. 2) anyone can make a better app to talk to it. 3) we got so many different ways of sharing our free speech here, it's not even funny. 4) you can backup your stuff. I'm not, but you can do that if you serve your own server. 5) you can establish your own rules or land on someone else's server that you trust.
At this point you gotta be a lower form of life to conclude that going centralized is good for anyone.
You deleting your posts from your own instance doesn't magically delete them from every other instance.
Seems to be standard functionality according to this:
https://fedi.tips/how-do-i-delete-a-post-on-mastodon/#:~:text=There%20are%20actually%20two%20delete,make%20changes%20and%20repost%20it.
According to the same article it can fail if the server is malfunctioning. But I would assume only rogue servers would do this intentionally...like suddenly kick all users or a particular user out and lock them out of their delete option.
And this is why federation is great.
Somewhere for the Trumpers to go when Truthsocial falls on its arse.
they'll probably go to brighteon social
I shouldn't have clicked that. Those people need professional help.
At least they have a place they can gather, and stay away from us.
their problem is that they don't like talking amongst themselves because they're mostly toxic people. they want normies and liberals to harass and get bored and agitated without them.
And more easily monitored.
so basically 4chan without the racial slurs
We’re “free speech” except these first 4 categories we could name off the top of our heads. There will never be any reason to add to this list. Adding to that list wouldn’t be “free speech”!
Well, they're being true to their namesake, I'll give them that.
Ah, so basically your site wants to see transphobic, homophobic, misogynist and sexist content. I see.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/
I joined Squabbles in June and liked it until the "free speech site" announcement.
I loved the lack of content ranking and downvoting so someone suggested Beehaw.
It seemed to me that the developer/admin jayclees was your basic tunnel visioned coder ignorant of news/current events. I got the feeling that he isn't politically invested. He just wanted to be left alone to code, so he changed his rules taking away the justification for messaging him. Posting on the site really slowed down. It looks like he lost many of his active users and kept his lurkers. I guess he figures it is worth the price of being left alone and that he will eventually get regular active posters again.
Wat da hel is squabbles?
Did everyone just skip right past reading this part? That's a lot of exceptions that cover a large gamut of activity that will continue to be not allowed. That's not exactly "free speech" by definition, but it also is not allowing content that most platforms also do not allow.
I am not exactly sure what I am missing?
There's a lot of context. Basically, there's been a few weeks of controversy over whether anti-lgbt viewpoints would be allowed. This post (along with the removal of two admins) was a statement that anti-lgbt viewpoints are explicitly allowed on the site as long as they avoid slurs and direct incitement of violence. With a site population that leans pretty far left, this didn't go over well at all.
In other words, "you can pick on minorities as long as they aren't racial minorities." Yeah, great distinction.
I am curious why the allowance of anti-LGBT viewpoints is so controversial. As stated above, all of the basic rules of civility are still being enforced.
Let's say he decided to clarify that anti-Christian, or anti-capitalist viewpoints are not allowed. There are millions of people around the world who would claim such censorship is bigoted and narrow-minded. And they would be correct.
As long as people are polite to one another, what exactly is the problem with allowing people to express their perspectives?
This isn't a dispute over tax code or which Star Trek is better, this is a bunch of bigots declaring a group of people don't deserve to live and pretending they aren't awful bigots because they're doing it "politely". That's not a "viewpoint", that's a declaration of war.
also their actions have crossed the line into outright genocide
Oh boy, here we go.
Tell me, how many trans people have been rounded up and murdered for being trans?
I'm going to guess you don't actually know what a genocide is, otherwise you wouldn't be shitting on the poor souls that actually died in a genocide by suggesting that poor trans women not being allowed to compete with biological women is a genocide.
Who are you referring to?
I'm sure if anyone said that, they would rightly get banned. My question is why any disagreement or criticism is interpreted as a declaration of war?
LGBTQ people disagree vehemently amongst themselves about nearly every aspect of the LGBTQ experience. It's not a topic that is well understood by anyone, not even people who are a part of it.
Religion and Work are every bit as important as sexual identity, if not more so for many people. Christianity isn't Star Trek (at least not in the minds of Christians), yet we would consider a Christian who responded to honest criticism of their religion with hostility to be a narrow-minded fool at best, a dangerous zealot at worst.
Obviously there are debates going on in queer circles about politics and identity. None of those debates ask anything even remotely like “do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?” That is the question conservatives seek to ask and the reason they want “free speech” on these platforms.
I see people claiming that's occurring far more often than I see it occurring. Maybe because the free speech sites I go on aren't just using as a shield for far right wing beliefs.
I also see plenty of people claiming that someone is denying them the right to exist for simply asking questions that aren't supportive. Yes, there are the assholes "just asking questions" in bad faith, but just as in the human body an overactive immune system causes more damage than it protects from.
The frequent immediate assumption of bad faith that seems to be commonly demonstrated by LGBT+ and allies when interacting with questioning viewpoints doesn't help the cause.
As others have pointed out, that sort of attitude from religious people would have them labelled zealots. Why is this suddenly acceptable when it comes to the often far more confusing and less accessible topic of sexuality and dysphoria?
I think maybe you should ask why people have no patience for just asking the Jewish question, or wondering why we don’t talk about how great it was for Black people to be slaves. Even if you are asking questions in good faith, the questions themselves can have flawed premises.
Generally public forums are not a great place to just ask questions, especially about sensitive subjects. Asking the people in question in their own forums in a respectful way will get you much further if you truly have questions that you are seeking the answers to.
No "conservatives" have ever asked "do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?" though.
I'll ask you and I hope you can give me an answer since no one else has ever been able to - what human rights do trans people NOT have?
Nobody is born Christian or capitalist. People are taught it. It's not an innate property of a person. You can choose to not be either of those at any point in time.
If you're allowing this kind of discourse towards LGBT persons, communities, etc. but still enforcing anti-racial policies then you're obviously well uninformed and taking a specifically and completely anti LGBT stance, be it knowingly or unknowingly.
I would argue the same is true of LGBTQ individuals. I don't see how one could rationally argue that an infant emerges from the womb with a fully formed sense of sexuality. Sexual identity is a nebulous trait that develops throughout our lives, not an objective, immutable physical fact such as the color of one's skin or the chromosomes composing one's genetic code.
Many LGBTQ people transition through a number of different sexual identities throughout their lives. An innate property is something that cannot be changed.
I suppose that it's possible that we all get assigned a hidden number at birth that defines our sexuality absolutely, and people just struggle to figure out what their "number" is due to societal pressure, but that doesn't really jive with our understanding of human biology, like at all. Nearly every trait we have studied exhibits both genetic factors and environmental factors.
This seems pretty disingenuous. Sexual and gender identity is not changeable by people, even if it can develop or change over time; so discriminating against it is categorically wrong, as these “free speech platforms” seek to do. In that regard it is the same as skin color.
I don't believe in free will, so I suppose we have reached a stalemate. In my mind, one's religion or favorite color is no more of a choice than sexual orientation. But I understand that most people would disagree with that perspective, and trying to convince you that free will doesn't exist is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Huh? Isn't this literally the opposite of what the LGBTQ+ current ideology is? That gender identity can change at any given second of any given day, as often as you want?
No one is asking for "discrimination" against LGBTQ+ people though, they're just asking for people that don't agree with their ideology to not be harrassed, censored, and banned. Pretty hilarious when you think about it - the minority group are actively calling for "discrimination" against people that they disagree with.
Because these 2 things are not the same, and by conflating them as such, you pretty clearly show what side of the fence you fall on. Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist is not the same thing as arguing about which brand of magic sky-daddy you subscribe to.
"Anti-LGBT viewpoints" fall along a pretty clear line. The same one that "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Black" views fall on. That these minorities don't deserve the same rights granted to white people, or even that they shouldn't be allowed to exist period. There has never been any other view presented by "anti-LGBT" people. They seek to exclude minorities from everyday life and eventually kill them off entirely. The arguments they use today against trans people are the same they used against gay people, which are just rehashed arguments they used to oppose equal rights for black people. There's no politeness to be found there. Might as well say that we should hear the Nazis out on this "final solution to the Jewish question," so long as they're polite in their arguing their case.
This isn't at all what anyone is saying though, and your side keep on trying to make it about that. No one thinks that LGBT people don't deserve the right to exist. Saying "hey guys, maybe don't have transgender people doing strip teases with sexual fetishes and inuendo in front of children" isn't "denying your right to exist". Saying "hey guys can you please not give books teaching kids about sucking dick and having anal sex to our 8 year olds?" isn't "denying your right to exist".
What rights don't trans people currently have that other people have? This is another of those disingenuous catchphrases that the "progressives" have. "trans rights are human rights!".....sure, so? What human rights don't you have? No one is denying you any rights.
I left my home because the leadership was getting so extreme, they decided that people no longer deserved healthcare because they were trans. I watched the governor crucify his own son, his child, over it. When people protested, even those in government, those government officials were formally gagged and kicked out of participating in government.
Those officials represented far more than just a few trans people. They represented entire districts in major cities. They represented families, straight and gay. Veterans, old and young, everyone. All because the leadership believed that a very small subset of the population, less than 1% of my country, should not have rights that other people have. The fact that they were willing to go to such lengths to deprive others of their rights just to get back at a small, peaceful group was astonishing.
We aren't talking about legions of vampires who need to eat people in order to live. We are talking 1 in 300 people who are just trying to get their prescriptions filled after work and now cannot without flying somewhere else.
I'm not even trans. But watching that Lord of The Flies style horror fest sent a chill up my spine. Society is only as strong as its weakest links, and when it breaks down, you don't want to be anywhere nearby when it happens.
When you say no longer deserve healthcare, what do you mean - full cut off of all healthcare, or just of “gender affirming care”? Like can they not go to a doctor because they have a sore foot? Or they just can’t go there to get bottom surgery and artificial hormones?
If it’s the latter, that’s not “depriving them of their human rights”. If it’s the former, which I’m 99% sure it isn’t, then yeah that’s crap. Places like Russia that are “banning” homosexuality etc are horrible, but that’s Russia and that’s the least of the problems. The western world doesn’t work like that.
It's the latter, for now. But those medicines aren't just used for trans people, they are used for all kinds of different illnesses. The fact that they didn't just strip it out of public healthcare, but private too, is a very bad sign.
Ok so it’s just fear mongering. No human rights are being denied, and no one is having their existence denied.
It actually does affect people when you can't get medications and when you are banned from school sports. Suicides skyrocket. People get harassed and stabbed because it emboldens people who would otherwise suppress their urges.
It would be in the same vein as if black people were refused drugs for sickle cell anemia. It puts people in a lower class when they are treated differently than the rest of the population. I know the same fear and hate the people in my state felt towards queer people, because I felt it myself decades before coming out.
No one is banned from school sports for being trans gender - they just have to play sports with people of their sex.
What about that stabbing has anything to do with the topic at hand?
Very few people declare themselves as anti-something. It's usually the mob that does that to individuals who say things that with sufficient amount of mental gymnastics can be made to sound like bigotry. This kind of thought terminating labels are the easiest way to get out of critical thinking.
And yet "anti-LGBT" was the term used by the comment above to describe the kinds of viewpoints that they're questioning why they aren't allowed. It's also the label used proudly by some of these groups themselves. Like the term TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) which was coined by the group itself, but was later claimed to be a slur by that very same group when they realized how the majority of people viewed them negatively because of it.
Why do you people keep talking about "the right to exist"? That's nonsensical. You either exist, or you don't. No one can take your existence away from you, it's not a right that can be granted by others.
What you are really talking about is the right to make assertions about the nature of human sexuality without being challenged to provide evidence for those assertions.
It's quite clear that you have a persecution complex. I can understand why, I'm sure you've had some unpleasant experiences with certain people that have caused you to adopt this defensive posture.
However, your comment is absolutely reeking of in-group and out-group bias. Everyone who is part of your group is being unfairly persecuted, and everyone who is not part of your group is a genocidal Nazi.
Personally, I am fully in favor of any and all expressions of sexuality, as long as the resultant behaviors and belief systems can be debated and analyzed like any other human behavior or position.
To the neutral observer, it's apparent that certain online communities cough are echo chambers that refuse to engage in honest discussion regarding LGBTQ topics and vigorously attempt to expel and shame those who do not adhere to the party line. This may be beneficial to your self esteem in the short run, but it ultimately does a disservice to your goals, assuming that you intend to enhance the acceptance of LGBTQ culture in our society moving forward.
Because that's exactly the kind of "anti-LGBT viewpoint" you're asking about. You don't have to go far to find people claiming that being Trans is just a fad, or a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your children, or just mentally ill men, or a nefarious group trying to destroy young girls' wombs through dangerous surgery. The list goes on and on, and that's just the recent anti-Trans crusade. These are the kinds of views that they want to bring to social media sites and claim their free speech is being censored when they're punished for it.
And these views are having real-life consequences. It's now considered a sex crime for a man to wear a dress in Florida. For several years, transgender people were more likely to be the victim of a hate crime than black or Jewish people in the US, and there's been an increase of hate crimes against both of those groups as well in the past decade. 8 out of 10 trans women in the US will be victims of sexual assault. LGBT people are one of the most likely groups to be refused medical care, often under the excuse that "it goes against my beliefs." Some of these groups have even outright said that their goal is to "eliminate transgender people from public life, and eventually, existing entirely." Some have straight up called for a trans genocide.
These same kinds of arguments have been trotted out for gay and black men - "they're a bunch of pedophiles coming for your kids!" Or for lesbians - "they're just damaged women." Or my favorite, said by a 20-something year old coworker to a 16 year old lesbian coworker, "you're not a lesbian, you just haven't had a dick in you yet."
I could not have said it better myself. Time and time again, science has shown that not only do LGBT people exist, but also how damaging the anti-LGBT rhetoric is. And yet, the "anti-LGBT" jam their fingers in their ears and scream about "woke indoctrination" before returning to their echo chambers. And eventually, that's what these kinds of "free speech" platforms become. Echo chambers for hatred, as these people harass and drive off anybody with opposing views. As a wise bartender once said after kicking out a skinhead just for being a skinhead, "You allow one Nazi, and you no longer have a bar. You have a Nazi bar. Because if you allow one, then they'll bring their friends, and eventually, they'll force everyone else out."
Also, you seem to have fallen for the "both sides" rhetoric they use to make themselves look innocuous while villifying their opponents. Stuff like the people encouraging those who who called in bomb threats to Target and threatened their employees for daring to have a line of Pride themed merchandise by saying it was protesting - that it was the same thing as people marching with signs against police brutality. You talk about the in-group and out-group bias of LGBT people while conveniently ignoring the exact same thing from the other side. Ignoring that these "anti-LGBT" people think they're being unfairly persecuted and anyone who disagrees with them is a "woke" communist or whatever.
Well, I can't say I agree with you, but I do appreciate your viewpoint and that you took the time to explain where you are coming from.
I wish you would try to be more welcoming to people who aren’t already in your camp, but at the end of the day I can't blame you for trying to protect yourself and other people in the LGBTQ community.
But where in any of that is anyone questioning their "right to exist"? Nowhere. No one has ever questioned a trans persons "right to exist".
💯
Because the people that are calling everyone else "transphobic" and "fascists" and "nazis" can't see that they're the ones being fascists by trying to censor all differing views. They can't handle having people with different opinions and viewpoints, often because they can't actually defend their odd views themselves, so they prefer to kick up a stink and have all different opinions banned.
I'll put it this way, there have been dozens of reddit alternatives over the years. Of those, pretty much every single one that advertised free speech has gone under from right-wingers, psuedo-nazi's etc.
The fact is, the biggest subset of people deplatformed off of reddit or any platform are truly just awful^1^ , regardless of what they claim about unfair moderation. And if you don't make it expressedly clear that you will not tolerate them, they will flock to your platform. Any claims of "free speech" even backed by "oh but nothing too awful please" is basically a dog whistle to them and they will flock to your platform.
If someone says something like this, they're either naïve about how this works or they're just saying it to maintain appearances. Either way, the platform is doomed.
[1] well maybe not recently due to api issues, but they're still a huge subset and will be the majority again eventually
This is typically done to allow transphobia. Misgendering people is not racist, a “slur,” targeted harassment, or an incitement to violence. So that’s usually what this kind of “free speech” exists to champion.
It's bit of a stretch to jump from misgendering to transphobia what ever that means. I have a relatively popular twitter page that's filled with pictures of me dressed as a woman so maybe that counts as evidence of me not being a transphobe but I still block everyone with pronouns in their bio because I think it's stupid. Especially coming from a culture with gender neutral pronouns.
Many people would be surprised how "intolerant" big part of the gay community is too. Nobody gets offended if your grindr says stuff like "no femmes"
Dressing as a woman does not inoculate one against transphobia, which means “dislike or strong prejudice against trans people.” Not sure why you block people with pronouns in their bio or why that’s stupid; and intolerance in the gay community is no reason to allow it to continue, there or anywhere.
I still don't get how misgendering makes makes one a transphobe. If you look like a woman I'll call you a woman but I do it not because I have to but because I generally try and be polite. However when we start policing language and demanding to be called this and that is when I sign out. It has nothing to do with not liking trans people. Atleast not in my case.
Misgendering someone is transphobic in exactly the same way that calling them the n-word is racist. It means you are prejudiced against that person for what makes them different — in this case it just sounds like you believe trans people don’t exist or are mentally ill members of their birth gender.
So yes, it means you are transphobic and you should self-reflect on improving that.
What? Pronouns are not slurs in and of themselves, like the n-word is. They are perfectly fine to use and inoffensive in something like 97% of human interactions. The n-word is not.
How do they suddenly change to something as horrible as the n-word when you use the wrong one with someone you've never met before who outwardly presents as the pronoun you use, but internally has decided they are a different one?
There's a big problem where people use the term "misgendering" as equivalent to "intentional misgendering". One can be an honest mistake, the other is bigotry.
The n-word is not a slur “in and of itself” either; people can use it in non-pejorative situations… just as pronouns. The problem is the words being used to rob people of their dignity by invoking their minority status against them.
So yes, in that context, pronouns can be slurs against trans people.
No one is railing against “unintentional misgendering,” which happens to everyone. Though if you aren’t sure, non-gendered pronouns are a perfectly suitable alternative.
No, it's definitely a slur "in and of itself". You're fighting a losing battle here, you're 100% wrong.
You're taking the piss here, right?
Misgendering someone is in no way the same as calling a black person the n-word lol. It would be more like calling them a "tranny" is the closest equivalent, though no equivalent to the n-word exists.
Misgendering is, at worst, rude. That's assuming that they have told you their "pronouns" in the first place, and you chose not to use them. Rude, but in no way equivalent to calling a black person the n-word. It doesn't mean you're "prejudiced" against that person, it just means you either don't play along with coerced speech or their ideology, or you just don't care.
Are you okay? I'm pretty sure trans people exist. That's the weirdest accusation I've heard for a while. What are they holograms then?
No, as I said, your argument is that they aren’t really the gender that they say they are, but whatever gender you say they are. That’s claiming they aren’t actually trans, which is denying the existence of trans people… which is transphobic.
I don't agree with that.
It's not their gender I have issues with. You can claim to be anything you want and I'm fine by that. It's only when people start demanding special treatment when I stop being nice.
In my native language there is no even he/she pronoun. The word is "hän" and it's gender neutral. You can be male, female, FTM, MTF, non-binary or what ever and you're still called "hän". That is what inclusivity looks like. Progress is caring less about ones race and gender - not more.
It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not; the definition of transphobia does not depend on your agreement. Simply that you act transphobic, which you do. (And respecting other people as long as they’re nice to you is a really crappy way to act. People deserve respect for who they are even if they won’t gratify your ego.)
Luckily for queer people, progress can actually be made by caring about your sexuality and gender. Imagine if what you said was actually true, what an awful dystopia we’d be living in!
If you're going to go by definitions then you have to have the element of "fear" in there. You're scared of trans people - that's what the "phobia" part means. Are you saying that people that disagree with biological men participating in womens sport are scared of trans people?
Ask the groups of conservatives arguing that trans people are either just a trend, a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your kids, a cult trying to destroy young girls wombs or perform life changing surgery on children, or any of a number of other accusations that say that trans people don't exist, including the two they mentioned. These are the kinds of "anti-LGBT arguments" that they claim are being censored.
Can you actually show us some evidence to support what you're saying here? No one says "trans people don't exist".
There's a lot of types of bigotry and other general nastiness that are not covered by that.
Normally I would not be so nitpicky with language but if multiple admins were removed / quit over it, that's pretty suspect.
I would imagine a place shouldn't even need rules for that in the first place, but I understand people arent always the most kind they can be online.
I think also, a lot of what is called "bigotry" is often being subjectively identified (that is, one person thinks a thing is bigoted while another doesn't, certainly one cannot and should not always default to agreeing that every interaction is bigoted otherwise no interaction would be allowed anywhere), but I would imagine a vast majority of "bigotry" would still fall under the very vast "slurs racial or otherwise" or "targetted harassment" exceptions.
I dont know all the details, but its possible these admins may have been overly strict in removing content they considered bigoted to the point of being disruptive. I used to operate a forum back in the early 2000s (for reverse engineering video game software) and there was one moderator I had to remove because they were too strict in their deletion of content for a similar reason. Entire threads would be left graveyards and there was no way to discern the context.
I am only presenting my own speculation of course. What you're saying is also possible. The only way to know is to wait and see what happens. I think a big problem for those platforms is how quickly people bandwagon leaving when a small group decry a potential problem. It's like when people try a new game with a low player population, then call the game dead. Those people leave, and they tell everyone else the game is dead. So nobody really joins, except the bottomfeeders nobody else wants.
There's a screenshot elsewhere in the comments of him saying he was specifically removing transphobia and homophobia as punishable offenses from the rules because those rules "were being used to silence conservative voices." That's a pretty clear stance to me.
Before, you could write "I don't like gay people" and get banned for it. Now you won't get banned for that post, unless you use a slur.
At least, that's my interpretation of it. Maybe it's a bit overblown, maybe it's a misstep by Jayclees, I dunno. I don't think a whole lot of people are really using Squabblr for conversational content in the first place, though. 99% of the platform is just memes. They should just stick to that, honestly. Nothing wrong with being a 9gag replacement.
If he wants to let people have dissenting opinions, then he should at least add a downvote mechanic to the platform. Otherwise it will be riddled with bad-faith arguments and brigading.
No, upvoting and downvoting needs to go away because it's just used to brigade and reinforce the circle jerk popular narrative.
All places like this should have are the options to report a post and to block/ignore/mute a poster. Those 2 options give everyone the ability to self moderate.
Good context, I didn't realize they don't have downvotes. That changes things a bit, the downvote is a fairly necessary mechanic for facilitating any type of serious discussion online.
But I'm still curious if anyone can rationally explain why saying "I don't like gay people" is worthy of a ban? Personally I would never say that, because it's an idiotic statement. But why is that unacceptable for someone to say?
There's a very simple response... "Why not?". And depending how they respond to that, they could definitely end up in banworthy territory. Or perhaps they might respond with an obvious misconception that could present an opportunity to educate someone on their ignorance.
Because that is an absurd reduction, and not based in reality. In reality, nobody got banned for saying: "I don't like gay people". What people were saying was so much worse. Hell, even describing the issue as homophobia is absurdly reductive. While I'm in no way saying homophobia isn't a thing anymore, it's much less of a hot-button issue among deplorables than it was 10 years ago. These days, they mostly focus on whether or not trans people exist, and how bad they're allowed to make trans people's lives before it constitutes "hate speech".
Make no mistake, this change in site terms will absolutely mean a rise in bigoted shit being posted there. That's the MO of bigots: they say and do awful things, then try to gaslight you into thinking that really, what they said and / or did was not that bad, and besides, it's free speech, innit? Managing an internet community is a never-ending fight against hordes of awful people who constantly try to turn that space into the next version of 8chan. You give Nazis an inch, next thing you know, they're taking Poland.
These days saying “biological sex exists” gets you banned on Reddit and even on some instances here going by the mod logs.
No it doesn't. That is another absurd reduction. Are you intentionally lying, or do you actually believe your own hyperbole?
Nobody, and I do mean nobody, would dispute that "biological sex exists". That is a ridiculous straw man. What all of the people who are educated on the topic will say is that biological sex and gender are two different things. What bigots and morons hear is "Hurr durr biological sex doesn't exist".
Yes it absolutely does. No amount of calling it a straw man will change this. People absolutely are now saying that biological sex isn’t a thing - you only need to look at “assigned male/female at birth”. No one is “assigned” a sex at birth, it’s observed.
Try throwing gaslighting out there next too, that usually goes hand in hand with straw man.
Ok, so delusional enough to believe your own hyperbole, then. Got it. Straight up crazy with a persecution complex.
Yes. Biological sex is observed, and then written on the birth certificate. Or in other words, "assigned". Also, there are occasions when someone is born intersex, and the doctor chooses. Well documented cases of this happening.
Well, sorry if my using the terms accurately offends you, snowflake. But if you're gonna say crazy, irrelevant shit, and then pretend that it's neither crazy nor irrelevant, you kind of have to live with the consequences of people calling you a gaslighter. Comes with the territory.
It can't be observed and assigned at the same time. No one is assigned a sex. Even if a doctor doesn't write it on a birth certificate you're still the sex that matches your chromosomes. The terms "AMAB" and "AFAB" were literally made to deny that biological sex exists lol. They literally mean "the doctor chose that I am a male or a female despite what I actually am" rather than "the doctor observed that I am a male/female".
Aww now you're getting upset and reverting to name calling lol. Definitely shows that you're winning the argument.
Also lol like clockwork with the intersex argument. Intersex people are a literal genetic deformity. They make up an insanely low fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of the population.
So, your big argument against the existence of trans people is semantics? Really? I'm telling you what assigned means when people say "assigned male/female at birth". I didn't make up the term. It's one that is in common parlance. You're so smugly wrapped up in nits to pick that you're missing the forest for the trees.
No. Incorrect. And stupid, and crazy. Nobody is denying that biological sex exists. I have no idea why you insist on pretending that they are.
Seriously, are you so insecure that you have to make up things to feel persecuted about? How pathetic are you?
Again, biological sex and gender are two completely different things. Most of the time, they're related, but not always. Which is why someone with XY chromosomes and a penis who is assigned male at birth can have the gender identity of female. It happens. Denying that is denying reality. Of course, you seem to want to choose to invent some fantasy world and then get offended when reality doesn't match it, so I'm not sure why I'm even taking the time of day to explain this shit to you. It's not even going to make it through your thick skull.
If describing you accurately is "name calling", then yes. I'm name calling. You're a snowflake. A stupid, crazy, immature snowflake. You can choose to not be one any time you'd like, but you seem to enjoy being one, so I'm not sure why you'd act all surprised when people call you out for it. Probably ties back to that whole persecution complex you've got. Poor little innocent victim. Aww.
Did I ever claim that they weren't? Why is it that you're ok with the idea that some intersex people exist while denying that some trans people exist? Is it because you can't see the differences with your eyes? Are you really so stupid that you believe that if you can't see it, it doesn't exist? Do you also believe that dyslexia doesn't exist?
The point is, we are insanely complicated organisms. Within the human spectrum exist vast amounts of variation. Some people are born intersex. Some people are born trans. Some people are born straight. Your stubborn refusal to see that says way more about you than it does about humanity.
Oh. My. God. You literally aren't reading a word I'm saying. Again with you guys it all comes back to "you're denying our existence!!" when literally no one is denying your existence. Saying "you're a male" when you identify as a woman isn't "denying your existence". Saying "Assigned Male At Birth" is, however, denying scientific and biological reality.
I'm sure you don't even see how dumb this argument you just made is. "I'm telling you what it means, therefor that's what it means even if what I'm telling you is wrong" lol.
Apart from all those who are.
Debatable still. The current use of gender is as a feeling, whereas previously it was intrinsically 1:1 linked to sex. This is what people are talking about when they say "gender ideology" and how they disagree with it. You think gender is simply a feeling. I don't.
Oh lord, the irony is too good here.
Yeah we're done here. You're clearly not of the right mental capacity or frame of mind to have a logical discussion. Shocking.
I've read everything you wrote. It's all profoundly stupid. You're trying to pretend that the phrase "assigned male at birth" means something it doesn't mean. You can look it up yourself, you know; you don't have to take my word for it. We live in an age of extreme information availability. So it's frustrating for me when you ignore all available evidence and cling to your stupid fantasy.
2 things: I'm not trans. Also, this entire comment chain started by you pretending that people were being banned because they pointed out that biological sex exists. When I pointed out that that was stupid and crazy and incongruous with reality, you doubled down. So how else am I to interpret your stance other than you love sticking your fingers in your ears, sticking your tongue out, saying "LALALA", and pretending that gender identity isn't separate thing from biological sex?
I wasn't arguing with you in the same way that telling a schizophrenic that there are no demons around him isn't arguing. It's pointing out reality to a crazy person. If you're too dumb to look it up yourself, or too ideologically blind to believe the evidence you find, then it's not an argument. It's simply a person with way too much patience trying desperately to get you acquainted with reality.
Ok. I'll bite. I'm sure you'll have no problem linking me to any mainstream arguments that biological sex doesn't exist since you believe it to be so prevalent. I'm happy to read any evidence you provide.
It's not, though. Because on my side is practically the entire weight of the scientific community, and on your side is bigots and crackpots. Refer to my previous paragraph about why that's not a debate.
Because the left hates freedom of speech, and assumes that it just means racism.
How would you define freedom of speech?
Probably non-racist bigotry
Im not good with legalese, Im not pedantuc enough, and I know thats a trap because Ive been on the internet more than two days.
If you think a simple attempt at discussion is pedantic and/or a trap, maybe a discussion forum such as this one is not a place where you will find many friends. I was sincerely trying to understand your point of view but it seems you won't even try to justify it.
ANY internet platform that proclaims itself as a guardian of free speech is either overun by racists, xenophobes and the like or, at the very least, holds a significant number of them. There's a reason most 2000s internet platforms (e.g, Reddit) eventually dropped 'Free Speech' as a policy over time.
Found the conservative troll.
In case you are not though, this not about "the left". This is about ultraconservatives using "free speech" as an excuse to voice their hateful dribble while shielding themselves from any consequences. It is a dog whistle, and an obvious one at that.
I don't exactly agree. I don't think it needs to be political whether a person considers "free speech" equivalent to "racism" or not. But I do think it has to do a little bit with the currently magnified political divide.
I think youll have a hard time finding a person who considers themselves politically left that says "free speech = racism" I think that expectation is not fully understanding the context, and is rather reductive.
I think the issue comes down to what I mentioned before. Bigotry is a term that many people use as a shield to stop things they don't want others to say, even if it is truthful or factual information. Both sides of the political divide employ this tactic, but it is approached in different ways.
If a person makes a joke about XYZ religion for example, but a person of XYZ religion says that joke is bigoted, who is right? Who gets to decide what is considered bigoted?
The person making the joke may be doing so because they hate all religion, or XYZ religion specifically, or they may be a member themselves and think its funny. The member of XYZ religion may be overly sensitive to jokes or remarks, or they may be particularly prejudiced against the person making the joke. There are many reasons a person can claim a particular statement is bigoted, but there is no way to say one way or another is definitively correct. Because of this, any person that is chosen to decide this is going to be effected by their own prejudice and bias. And sadly, such bias has become magnified so much greater in recent years compared to the past.
Believe it or not, there used to be a time where you could have two people with opposite viewpoints talking to each other about said viewpoints, and they would walk away laughing and smiling, considering the other no worse than they did prior to the conversation. These days, people wont even listen to each other. It just becomes a screaming/silencing/downvoting/reporting war.
"Oh hey buddy, I don't think you should have the same rights as everyone else and you probably shouldn't even exist. Let's just laugh and smile and grab a drink, hahah"
Yeah... No.
Nice hyperbole. Is the post your responding to talking about that level of things at all?
Yeah... No.
It shouldn't even need to be said that isn't ok.
There's an issue though with people claiming that's happening when someone has disagreements in beliefs. A disagreement is not a denial of someone's right to exist. A challenge of a core belief is not a statement that someone doesn't deserve rights.
For example: Someone saying "I'm not okay with the use of puberty blocking medicine in treatments of dysphoria" is not the same as someone saying "We need to gather up all those mentally deranged ladyboy pedophiles and gas them", but they are often treated as equivalent through mental gymnastics. Like saying that puberty can greatly increase feelings of dysphoria, and feelings of dysphoria can lead to mental duress and suicide, so by the transitive property: disagreeing with the use of puberty blockers is equivalent to wishing trans folks to kill themselves, denying them the right to exist.
It's a multi step process to get from A to B amd it's a ridiculous assertion, but I've seen that back and forth literally happen. More than once.
What exactly is wrong with free speech?
The problem isn't free speech, the problem is "free speech".
We should call them "freeze peach" to avoid the constant "what's wrong with the free speech" arguments.
It's called thinking freedom of speech means freedom to be a fucking asshole.
Free speech means people have to hear things they disagree with, and that is violence apparently.
Judging by the number of downvotes my question received, looks like most people here prefer censorship over expressing ideas.
Yeah the irony of the people who call other people fascists just begging for censorship is hilarious. They don’t even see what they’re doing. They are the nazis in this situation. They’re the ones calling for violence against “terfs” and the murder of politicians and Supreme Court members.
Yeah, that's the Paradox of Tolerance. Short version: If you're being intolerant, why should I tolerate you?
To paraphrase Karl Popper: A society that values tolerance to the point of indulging those that oppose it will effectively be defenseless against that hate. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reason with them first, but we need to reserve the right to shut them up, by force if we have to.
Karl Popper, 1945, The Open Society and Its Enemies
I do hope that you see how that same exact idea applies to all sides though, right? It’s basically saying that Nazis are allowed to use force to shut up the other side as well.
I don't think the Nazis care about what I think they should or should not be allowed to do. They're going to use violence, whether or not I hold a gun or a white flag. If I say "No, force is bad!" they're going to say "Suit yourself!" and use it anyway. How am I going to stop them?
An ideology is worth only as much as the people defending it. If I am so concerned with the letter of the law if tolerance that I refuse to defend its spirit, I'll be condemned along with it.
That's the point of the paradox: If we deny ourselves the use of force, we're essentially conceding that right to them.
This an ideological conflict. We each believe the other is in the wrong, so whatever rules the other attempts to impose have no bearing on us because they're wrong. Hence: We should try rational argument first and hope to keep them in check by public opinion, but when that fails?
You can go stand in the middle and be proud of your enlightenend and nonviolent convictions. And when they next shoot up a gay night club or a black church, you can go and look the dying victims and their grieving loved ones in the eye and say "Aren't you glad these people get to freely encourage each others' bigotry?"
So when it comes to dealing with fascists, I'll listen to the guy that watched the rise of the original fascists, the failure of democracy, and took notes
(ibid)
The problem is you’re not even trying the rational argument, you’re going straight to censorship and in doing so you’re steeling their resolve and converting more people to be against you.
It’s like the “just stop oil” people - by doing their stupid protests that only hurt regular people they’re hurting their cause and turning people against them.
Oh I have tried the rational argument often enough. I still do, where I see the opportunity. I spend way too much time trying to convince people of my point of view even when I'm pretty sure there never was any hope in the first place.
But the type of hate speech and stochastic terrorism we're talking about "censoring" is beyond rational discourse. If "Don't use slurs, please" drives you to say "Fuck you, I'll hang with the bigots then", then tolerance can't have been that important to you.
You don't need to keep touching the stove to realise it's hot. Many platforms have tried the free speech angle and realised that it leads to an influx of hate, devoid of reason, and they'll either introduce some moderation or have all other people leave because nobody wants concentrated vitriol on their feed, except for those toxic enough to thrive on it.
We can debate rationally when both parties are being rational. If you can't "debate" without spewing hatred, then I shouldn't have to waste my time playing by rules you never gave a fuck about in the first place.
Again though - you’re deciding what is “hateful” and “rational”. You’re assuming that everything you believe is “right”. They do the same. They think you’re spewing hate by calling them Nazis and bigots and saying you want them to die (which is fair, since you are).
The difference is they’re not calling for you to be banned and your viewpoints censored. That’s you doing that.
I'm not going to stand by idly while they encourage each other with calls to violence. I don't want anyone to die at all, but they're the ones advocating for it. They started this.
We all just want to live our best lives. We only ask that you don't interfere with our enjoyment. When you do, we reserve the right to self-defense, the most natural right of all.
If you genuinely think that they're fine to call for the death of my people, but I'm wrong to want to silence that sentiment, then you're complicit in their violence.
Just leave us in peace. You can have your little circle of supremacy where you reaffirm how awesome you all are, as long as you don't bother anyone else. That's all we ask: Tolerance and respect for one another.
To use the current issue, no one is calling for violence against trans people though. That’s just something the trans advocate groups are pretending is happening so they can call for violence against “terfs”, as we’ve seen many times at women’s rights rally’s. It’s not the “terfs” bashing people, it’s the “allies” and “advocates”.
The irony is delicious. Biological women are asking that biological men don’t interfere with their enjoyment in sports, bathrooms, gyms, etc yet being told they’re transphobic nazi bigots.
No one is calling for the death of your people. This is a far left tactic as old as time - pretend and straight up lie that everyone else is attacking them so they can go on the offence themselves.
As I’ve said many times - if you find something offensive, ignore it and/or don’t engage with the person saying it. Block them. The answer to someone saying something you don’t like should never be to prevent them from saying it. That’s literal textbook fascism.