Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

> It worked majority of the time. It typically stopped to work only when power to be ceased to have power.

Which is to say it has never worked. Because all power structures eventually collapse and yet the ideologies they tried to suppress remain and rise again. And sometimes, it's actually the resurgence of those suppressed ideologies that destroys the established power structures. As is the case in the USA right now.

> The suppression of nazi ideology post WWII did not lead to blow back either.

You can't be serious.

https://www.ft.com/content/dcd4aee8-936f-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3...

I will leave it to anyone uninvolved unfortunate enough to still be reading this to judge whether your rush to insist that it's perfectly normal for presidents to enthuse about how North Korea does political discourse and that the increase in rhetorical, legislative and physical attacks on the 'enemy' in the media by the right in recent years is 'frequently perfectly justified' is the argument of someone sincerely worried about chilling effects on all speech.

> The historical view of transness was that people who are trans wanted to present as the other part of the binary.

This is still how trans people think today. And if you are into language details, you'll realize that 'transgender' literally says that - getting across to another gender. Same way like transport meant getting to another harbour.

> I'll note that I'm intentionally simplifying here which has the consequence of erasing some identities like gender-fluidity.

> So "old" trans was about perception, "new" trans is about identity.

If the identity of gender-fluidity can be externally erased by your wording, its perception, not identity. I'm sure the same applies to trans.

> Passing (or not) doesn't make someone's voice valid. Identity does.

The wrong assumption here is that your LGBT status can make your voice valid or invalid. The idea that interpretation sovereignty for things comes from your subjective identity is appalling. I'm not sure how you read that into my posting.

> Identity does. If you identify as trans, you are and that identity is valid is really how I'd summarize things.

Only a very privileged person (or lack of social experience) would be in the position to even assume that this is how things work in reality. Subjectively identifying yourself does not work for anything except your name. Its all about how others perceive you.

And i tell you, they explicitly told me that they want to be seen and accepted as women. This is like, the greatest wish of people with gender dysphoria. This is definitely "perception".

> There's the potential for abuse of this, but in practice it doesn't happen.

What about Jessica Yaniv?

> I'd be careful conflating sexual deviancy with LGBT identities for two reasons [...]

I meant 'deviant' literally. As in, "deviance". Remove the "sexual" if it bothers you. I don't have contact fears with that word and will use it to refer to myself to reclaim it. You better not have any problems with that.

You are repeating the mistakes of identity politics. Like, if it was just a random opinion, fine. But identity politics are (due to their observably wrong dogma) alienating to both LGBT people and allies. If people go on like you, acceptance might fall enough that LGBT rights will be rolled back (already happening in the US). And this will hit LGBT people, not you.

The term is meaningless. That's the point.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20623177

> This is still how trans people think today.

Some trans people find external validation important, yes. But being trans is not defined by external validation (and certainly not external perception), but instead self perception.[0] This is obvious: it would imply that a man in drag is a trans woman, which is obviously untrue.

> If the identity of gender-fluidity can be externally erased by your wording, its perception, not identity. I'm sure the same applies to trans.

No, gender-fluidity can be erased only due to the simplification that feelings are permanent. If we accept that how one self-perceives can, for some, change over time, then that leads obviously to gender fluidity. Like I said, I was simplifying, and specifically the simplification erased some identities. Removing the simplification doesn't erase any other identities. The identities were never invalid. The simplified definition I was using just didn't extend to them.

> Its all about how others perceive you.

Self perception certainly isn't all about how others perceive you. It may indeed be influenced by external factors, but I identify as a man not because of how others perceive me but due to my innate feelings about myself. Dysphoria is a mismatch between self-perception and external validation. The self-perception isn't defined by the external validation, if it were you couldn't experience dysphoria.

So I'll reiterate: trans people are trans based on how they identify, not based on how they are perceived. A biological male who is a closeted trans woman is still trans, no matter how I perceive them. The same person is still trans if they eventually become a passing woman.

> The wrong assumption here is that your LGBT status can make your voice valid or invalid.

When discussing the experience of being LGBT, of course it does. In general, of course it doesn't. You seemed to imply otherwise when you said "because this is what they think makes their voice 'valid'."

Which, like I said, isn't the case. None of the trans people I work with or know believe that being physically non-passing makes their voices any more valid than it would be if they were passing. Let me just reiterate that: None of the trans people I associate put any particular weight on being non-passing, this was something you invented, and it entirely contradicts how the trans people I know define their transness.

In other words, to make that claim is to misrepresent what being trans is for many trans people.

> This is like, the greatest wish of people with gender dysphoria. This is definitely "perception".

Yes, for some trans people that is absolutely the case! I'm not denying that people who are "classically" trans are trans. They absolutely are. Their dysphoria is still driven by a self-perception mismatch.

Let try to approach this another way: if we agree that classical trans identities, those that align closely with the gender binary, are valid, then the question is what about people who have less severe dysphoria? Like if we accept that it is possible for someone's self-perception to completely mismatch their body, why do we reject the idea that there can only be partial mismatch. In other words, they don't perceive themselves as either strictly a man or a woman. This is where you get various non-binary trans identities.

Again, all I'm doing is adding more people under the trans umbrella, I'm very much not denying any particular trans person's experience.

> What about Jessica Yaniv?

I'm glad you asked! Here's Contrapoints again to dive into the concept of "trans-trenders" and specifically Yaniv better than I ever could.[1]

> acceptance might fall enough that LGBT rights will be rolled back (already happening in the US)

If you honestly believe that LGBT rights are at risk because of a perceived backlash to "identity politics" (which, to be clear is a phrase I still don't understand the meaning of), and not simply the US religious right doing the same things it's always done, you haven't been paying attention. Education and normalization does more to protect LGBT people than staying silent.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mspMJTNEY

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdvM_pRfuFM