How bad is the anti-trans movement going to get?

[Ella S.]

That's not what I said. If someone wants to try to "diffuse their anger," they're free to do so. What I'm saying is that I don't regard that as an obligation for anyone, least of all the targets of the hatred and calls for violence.



Multiple European countries have the highest global levels of freedom per multiple indices. The US has an immature version of "freedom of speech" where incitement can go unchecked.



Those are not mutually exclusive. Prosecuting Nazi preaching is a demonstrably effective way of mitigating the problem. See the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries among the most prosperous and free in the world.

I suspect we won't agree on this, because I'm staunchly against libertarian and largely American notions of "free speech" that overlook or fail to take into account the various reasons to prosecute incitement and hate speech and the benefits to doing so.

"Free speech" in America is a sort of Orwellian doublespeak for "allowed speech." It doesn't protect you from advocating for crime, conspiring to commit crime, or inciting riots, for instance. Which is to say, it robs individuals of their power to fight the system itself.

Yet hate speech is protected by free speech. Could it be because hate speech reinforces the power dynamics that the state benefits from? That's at least partially the reason, given that our police originated from slave catching groups and have a history of being closely tied to white supremacist movements like the KKK.

No, I don't support "free speech," either.

 

[Ella S.]

Straining for gnats but swallowing camels? If more harm comes from trans lifestyle itself rather than outside factors then that should be addressed first and foremost. So long as the trans community denies that it produces deleterious consequences it will suffer. Too many trans supporters are loath to admit that much of their suffering is self-induced for fear it will undermine their cause. Which is sad and counterproductive.

There is no "transgender lifestyle" any more than there is a "cisgender lifestyle." There are simply trans and cis people who are trying to live while people like you use them as scapegoats.

Your word games don't obscure your underlying thesis that trans people are inherently harmful enough. That's just irrational prejudice on your part, not the fault of a movement fighting to help and protect those you condemn.

 

[JDMS]

Straining for gnats but swallowing camels? If more harm comes from trans lifestyle itself rather than outside factors then that should be addressed first and foremost. So long as the trans community denies that it produces deleterious consequences it will suffer. Too many trans supporters are loath to admit that much of their suffering is self-induced for fear it will undermine their cause. Which is sad and counterproductive.

But... transition decreases suicide rates among trans people...? [1], [2], [3], [4], etc...

 

[Kfox]

"Free speech" in America is a sort of Orwellian doublespeak for "allowed speech." It doesn't protect you from advocating for crime, conspiring to commit crime, or inciting riots, for instance.

Of course not! That’s because there are laws in place preventing one from doing that. Free speech does not allow you to do something already deemed illegal.

Which is to say, it robs individuals of their power to fight the system itself.

You’ve got that backwards; free speech allows one the power to fight the system.

Yet hate speech is protected by free speech.

It has to be, that’s because what constitutes hate speech is completely subjective. What one calls hate speech, another will call the truth.

Could it be because hate speech reinforces the power dynamics that the state benefits from?

No.

That's at least partially the reason, given that our police originated from slave catching groups

Every society has to have police. The police have been around long before slave catching groups, and even during slavery, the vast majority of people policed were non slaves.

and have a history of being closely tied to white supremacist movements like the KKK.

It was the police that brought down the KKK

No, I don't support "free speech," either.

Well you should. History teaches us that the group that stands against free speech has always been on the wrong side of fairness and justice.

 

[PureX]

(I tried to get the actual screen shot posted here, or a link to the screen shot, but for some reason I could not get it to work. Sorry if you don't like to watch videos but that is the best I could do)

The question was asked about public execution of Doctors, Therapists, Teachers and Guidance Counselors who help trans children.

The response was very enthusiastic. People who responded were very much in favour of killing teachers, doctors etc. Anyone who helps a trans child.


How dark is this going to get?

Most Americans, and even many republicans have no interest in nor support for this nonsensical vitriolic bigotry and scape-goating. Soon the political goons and their toadies in the media will realize that they are riding a sinking ship, and will look for some other method of stirring up public outrage and riding it to fame and fortune. .

 

[metis]

When it comes to sexuality, I don't want the government to dictate to a teen, his/her parents, and their doctor what they must do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Free speech" in America is a sort of Orwellian doublespeak for "allowed speech." It doesn't protect you from advocating for crime, conspiring to commit crime, or inciting riots, for instance. Which is to say, it robs individuals of their power to fight the system itself.

Yet hate speech is protected by free speech. Could it be because hate speech reinforces the power dynamics that the state benefits from? That's at least partially the reason, given that our police originated from slave catching groups and have a history of being closely tied to white supremacist movements like the KKK.

No, I don't support "free speech," either.

Yeah, even free speech is not universally the same in all of the Western world. Just as with what harm is. But according to the fringe of hate and harm, I have to accept hate and harm, because that is freedom.

 

[Revoltingest]

As far as I'm aware, nothing that I'm willing to compromise on.

I'm not advocating compromise here, despite the
fact that all politics involves it to some extent.
Just using civility as a weapon to change minds.

This is an old argument on RF. In the past, we
broke down into to groups (as I've seen things)....
1) Those who seek to change minds using persuasion.
2) Those who believe that hostility singularly necessary.

Oddly, #2 has often been favored by leftish posters who
want RF to be a place where we have civil discussions
about contentious issues. But for IRL they advocate the
opposite, & see civil discourse as appeasement.
They get all....You can't reason with those people!
Such hypocrisy to advocate being part of the problem
instead of the solution.

 

[icehorse]

The question was asked about public execution of Doctors, Therapists, Teachers and Guidance Counselors who help trans children.

The response was very enthusiastic. People who responded were very much in favour of killing teachers, doctors etc. Anyone who helps a trans child.


How dark is this going to get?

This is a great example of how extremism is infecting so many aspects of life. There are times when extremism might be called for, but I've got a simple test I use:

If your brand of extremism requires DOGMA, and does not allow discussion, you're probably on a bad path.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Free speech" in America is a sort of Orwellian doublespeak for "allowed speech."

"Orwellian"?
Nah, the term "free" has long...since before USA even
existed...been widely understood to not mean "without
any limit at all", but rather to mean something akin to
"largely", but with reasonable restrictions, eg, you can't
solicit a hit man to kill @Heyo for his weedy lawn with
a Trump sign in it.
Disclaimer:
His lawn IRL is well maintained.

It doesn't protect you from advocating for crime, conspiring to commit crime, or inciting riots, for instance. Which is to say, it robs individuals of their power to fight the system itself.

Yet hate speech is protected by free speech. Could it be because hate speech reinforces the power dynamics that the state benefits from? That's at least partially the reason, given that our police originated from slave catching groups and have a history of being closely tied to white supremacist movements like the KKK.

No, I don't support "free speech," either.

Many people want government to limit speech, but
only of other people when they say things we dislike.
A problem:
The power of government to do something for you
is the power to do something to you. Would you want
our revolving door of leaders like Trump & Nixon to
be able to deem some speech prosecution-worthy?
I don't trust our government enuf to give them more
power than it already has. I regularly read news of
some state trying to make it illegal to insult cops.

 

[Debater Slayer]

2) Those who believe that hostility singularly necessary.

This is an inaccurate portrayal of most leftist positions I have seen here. It also doesn't reflect my own, which falls within the left-wing category.

Oddly, #2 has often been favored by leftish posters who
want RF to be a place where we have civil discussions
about contentious issues. But for IRL they advocate the
opposite, & see civil discourse as appeasement.
They get all....You can't reason with those people!
Such hypocrisy to advocate being part of the problem
instead of the solution.

There's much more variation and nuance in most leftist positions I have seen here than "civil discourse is appeasement."

Maybe it would be fairer to leftists to try to understand their positions in the same way you propose understanding neo-Nazis' feelings.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is an inaccurate portrayal of most leftist positions I have seen here. It also doesn't reflect my own, which falls within the left-wing category.

Agree to disagree.

There's much more variation and nuance in most leftist positions I have seen here than "civil discourse is appeasement."

Nonetheless, I see lefties here advocating for incivility,
not conservatives. This allows that some lefties agree
with me about peaceful persuasion.

Maybe it would be fairer to leftists to try to understand their positions in the same way you propose understanding neo-Nazis' feelings.

When lefties advocate worsening a problem
because they want only to fulminate at people,
they dislike, I'll criticize'm. Don't be evil.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Um, what power don't trans people have? There's trans people in the government and in elected positions, the Democratic Party pretty much officially supports trans rights, there's all the rich advocacy groups like HRC and GLAAD and numerous others, there's trans people who are famous celebrities, there's a lot of allies, etc. We're not exactly marginalized. I know I'm not. There's nothing stopping me from voting, donating money, protesting whatever I want, etc.

2024 Anti-Trans Bills: Trans Legislation Tracker

2024 anti-trans bills tracker. Explore data on U.S. anti-trans legislation including passed bills and themes including sports, bathrooms, healthcare, pronouns, drag shows, and education.

translegislation.com

The GOP’s coordinated national campaign against trans rights, explained

Republicans are unleashing a torrent of anti-trans bills at the state level ahead of 2024.

www.vox.com

 

[Debater Slayer]

Agree to disagree.

We can focus on my own position, since discussing everyone else's would be too much of a hassle.

What you said doesn't describe my position; this isn't really a matter of opinion, because your description simply misaligns with what I actually believe.

Nonetheless, I see lefties here advocating for incivility,
not conservatives. This allows that some lefties agree
with me about peaceful persuasion.

I consider things like theocratic laws and anti-LGBT rhetoric far more uncivil than refusing to engage neo-Nazis in "discussion." Do you disagree?

When lefties advocate worsening a problem
because they want only to fulminate at people,
they dislike, I'll criticize'm. Don't be evil.

No, you're again shifting the onus to people who refuse to lend their time and effort to neo-Nazis. The people who worsen the problem are mainly those who spread hatemongering rhetoric, support persecution of groups who harm no one, and vote accordingly.

Your viewpoint is simply focused on an idealized notion of "free speech" that the vast majority of countries outside the 50 states, including ones more prosperous than the US, don't even take seriously enough to discuss in their homelands.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm not advocating compromise here, despite the
fact that all politics involves it to some extent.
Just using civility as a weapon to change minds.

I can agree that sometimes it’s easier to sway minds with a more “soft approach.”
Using rhetoric to calm fears or reach a person by appealing to their feelings is seen by many on the left (at least from what I’ve seen) to be a very useful debating tactic.
Problem is where’s the common expectation for the other side, so to speak.
I’ve seen many folks criticise filthy leftist heathens for not being civil. Meanwhile they seem to shrug off actual hate speech targeted towards minorities. This is seen as something akin to “the cost of doing business.”

Why should the left be held to a higher standard?
That’s what lead to things like GamerGate and what have you. Leftists had to adapt to an edgier younger audience. They threw out civility because respect is a two way street. If they weren’t getting any, and their audience were constantly bullied, why be civil?
That was increasingly seen as a weakness.
Ironically if the left had any chance of persuading people they had to take off the gloves.
Empathy and kindness was still emphasised to their young audience. But it was done so with an attitude of “you deserve respect. If your opponent shows you none, why should you?”

This is an old argument on RF. In the past, we
broke down into to groups (as I've seen things)....
1) Those who seek to change minds using persuasion.
2) Those who believe that hostility singularly necessary.

Oddly, #2 has often been favored by leftish posters who
want RF to be a place where we have civil discussions
about contentious issues. But for IRL they advocate the
opposite, & see civil discourse as appeasement.
They get all....You can't reason with those people!
Such hypocrisy to advocate being part of the problem
instead of the solution.

Interesting.
I’d argue that perhaps one side just got sick of being trolled and told they had to tolerate it. Lest they be seen as uncivil.
And fair enough.
Why should I show respect to someone being belligerent to me.
In my country they’ve started to throw people out for being disrespectful to staff in stores. Grocery, convenience and any other retail outlet. Because why should a person not face consequences for being a jerk?
Before it was just shrugged off as part of the job. But employees (and their unions) made the case that civility should be a minimum for all. Not just brushed aside. If someone can’t behave like an adult with decorum, why should they be treated like an adult?
Kick em out unceremoniously. If they can’t show respect, why should the staff?

 

[Shaul]

But... transition decreases suicide rates among trans people...? [1], [2], [3], [4], etc...

I don't accept that is true, but for the sake of argument let's say it was. That would still not be persuasive. That is because the hormone treatments produce deleterious side effects such as increased breast cancers, mycardial infarctions and other life shortening ailments. These ailments most likely offset any reduction in suicide rates (which are still much higher than non trans people). Alternative non-hormonal or body altering treatments don't have these side effects, obviously. Yet trans supporters eschew those because they don't produce the physiognomy changes they lust after. So instead of treating the root cause, the psyche issue, they rush to secondary things such as to change their bodies. But without truly addressing the mental/psyche cause that path is a poor substitute.

 

[Revoltingest]

We can focus on my own position, since discussing everyone else's would be too much of a hassle.

What you said doesn't describe my position; this isn't really a matter of opinion, because your description simply misaligns with what I actually believe.

I base the criticism on what you post.

I consider things like theocratic laws and anti-LGBT rhetoric far more uncivil than refusing to engage neo-Nazis in "discussion." Do you disagree?

Holding heinous views isn't necessarily "un-civil".
You've advocated socialism replacing capitalism.
I find your pursuit of a system that has been universally
authoritarian & economically miserable to be evil.
Should I be rude & hostile to you?
Or is it better to have a civil discussion to try to persuade
you to change?

No, you're again shifting the onus to people who refuse to lend their time and effort to neo-Nazis. The people who worsen the problem are mainly those who spread hatemongering rhetoric, support persecution of groups who harm no one, and vote accordingly.

That misrepresents what I've posted about peaceful persuasion.
No one has the obligation to change the world for the better.
But I advocate choosing it.

Your viewpoint is simply focused on an idealized notion of "free speech" that the vast majority of countries outside the 50 states don't even take seriously enough to discuss in their homelands.

And your viewpoint is simply focused upon hostility towards
people you oppose, & making their speech illegal.
It's unreasonable to propose in a country where such restrictions
will not happen. We are not Egypt, Germany, or China.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can agree that sometimes it’s easier to sway minds with a more “soft approach.”
Using rhetoric to calm fears or reach a person by appealing to their feelings is seen by many on the left (at least from what I’ve seen) to be a very useful debating tactic.
Problem is where’s the common expectation for the other side, so to speak.
I’ve seen many folks criticise filthy leftist heathens for not being civil. Meanwhile they seem to shrug off actual hate speech targeted towards minorities. This is seen as something akin to “the cost of doing business.”

Why should the left be held to a higher standard?
That’s what lead to things like GamerGate and what have you. Leftists had to adapt to an edgier younger audience. They threw out civility because respect is a two way street. If they weren’t getting any, and their audience were constantly bullied, why be civil?
That was increasingly seen as a weakness.
Ironically if the left had any chance of persuading people they had to take off the gloves.
Empathy and kindness was still emphasised to their young audience. But it was done so with an attitude of “you deserve respect. If your opponent shows you none, why should you?”



Interesting.
I’d argue that perhaps one side just got sick of being trolled and told they had to tolerate it. Lest they be seen as uncivil.
And fair enough.
Why should I show respect to someone being belligerent to me.
In my country they’ve started to throw people out for being disrespectful to staff in stores. Grocery, convenience and any other retail outlet. Because why should a person not face consequences for being a jerk?
Before it was just shrugged off as part of the job. But employees (and their unions) made the case that civility should be a minimum for all. Not just brushed aside. If someone can’t behave like an adult with decorum, why should they be treated like an adult?
Kick em out unceremoniously. If they can’t show respect, why should the staff?

Did you read my link about Daryl Davis?
Is it wrong of him to be friendly to KKK members,
& persuade them to drop their hatred of minorities?
Or should he have been hostile because they're
vile racists?

 

[SomeRandom]

Did you read my link about Daryl Davis?
Is it wrong of him to be friendly to KKK members,
& persuade them to drop their hatred of minorities?

No, but I’d argue that that is not always a good approach either.
Trying to get through to people is a noble thing. But if someone is arguing in bad faith, a good way to get through to the audience listening is to become more aggressive. Because the audience may respond better to that approach.
You can’t always be civil and you can’t always be belligerent. You try to read the room and tune your approach accordingly

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but I’d argue that that is not always a good approach either.
Trying to get through to people is a noble thing. But if someone is arguing in bad faith, a good way to get through to the audience listening is to become more aggressive. Because the audience may respond better to that approach.
You can’t always be civil and you can’t always be belligerent. You try to read the room and tune your approach accordingly

I've nothing to add.