331–340 of 505 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Cis" people dont care about being misgendered.
Sure I’d hate it if you called me a TexanLady instead of a TexanFeller. But I will defend your right to call me names. Speech that offends someone doesn’t imply speech that shouldn’t be allowed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fully disagree. They publicly mocked a trans person, in clear violation of the TOS that all users agree to as a condition of use of the platform. They were then temporarily suspended, as clearly laid out in the TOS. Twitter says "Hey, if X, then Y." Babylon Bee says "Yeah, ok." Babylon Bee does X, and experiences Y. They are not victims, and there is no "violation of free speech" here.
Lots of people are publicly mocked on Twitter everyday. What makes "trans" people so special?
trans people are an endangered (in the most literal sense) minority that is not doing anything to hurt others and yet is frequently targeted for many heinous things. Thus, they are special and need our protection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of people are publicly mocked on Twitter everyday. What makes "trans" people so special?
The difference is a highly engaged set of authoritarian activists who will assassinate your character and get you fired. Other groups don't have the equivalent of a Red Guard to enforce their ideology or religion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not true either. The "Presumption in favor of privacy" section, especially the "Privacy of names" part might interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...
There's two separate concerns: 1. Privacy of names in general 2. Treatment of people who have changed their names. For #2 there is a specific rule dealing with deadnaming: > If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did it because of her accomplishments, not for being a transgender woman. There is an important difference. I understand the satire on some level, she was a man, she only transitioned later in her life, so of course there is always a question of whether you have to be born a woman to be a woman, did these people born into the wrong body, can someone be a woman if you find her look uncanny and so on. There is a l…
I have no problem with trans people, but making someone like Rachel Levine woman of the year on the basis of her accomplishments does ignore something important. Namely that a lot of the 'woman of the X' awards are meant to inspire or encourage women in fields they are discouraged from, and that having been perceived as a male for a lot of her career meant that Levine didn't experience early career sexism and that so…
The entire point is that we shouldn't build artificial obstacles anymore. The conservatives are obsessed with who's what color and gender, what they are doing in the bedroom or in the hospital, but we don't have to. None of this should matter, not for an engineering job, not for anything. The entire cultural war is completely pointless. Conservatives say that they are doing it for the sanctity of the family and normalcy, just like Putin is saying that he is doing it to protect Russia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Wikipedia tends to err on the side of respecting the wishes of the subject. For a less political example, CPG Grey's page doesn't have his legal name or photo despite them being pretty easy to find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGP_Grey
>Because Wikipedia tends to err on the side of respecting the wishes of the subject. Unless that subject is right wing. Wolf Blitzer: >Wolf Isaac Blitzer (born March 22, 1948) is an American journalist, television news anchor, and author who has been a CNN reporter since 1990, and who currently serves as one of the principal anchors at the network.[1] He is the host of The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and until 2…
>Rachel Anne Maddow (/ˈmædoʊ/ (listen), MAD-oh; born April 1, 1973) is an American television news program host and liberal political commentator.
Maddow has used the same defense against litigation as Carlson. The 'conservative/liberal' tag is applied when a person is described as a political commentator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was a niche viewpoint 7 years ago (which I would quibble with, given third gender and trans people have existed for millennia across many cultures, just not commonly in modern America), then great, we've seen science advance. We used to think that being gay was a mental disease. We now recognize it as something that many animals have as a part of their population, including humans. 20 years ago, being gay was l…
I am all about being nice to people who live their lives however, but the idea of "gender" as a fluid philosophical concept distinct from sex is super squishy. It's massively overstating things to call it "settled science" or even "science" at this point. It's philosophy in theory and public opinion in practice. Science: this phenomenon exists and people exist who've had these experiences. That's a factual statement.…
Consider: you would probably agree with me that a butch tomboy and a valley girl fashionista are both women. But they represent different extremes on what we, socially, agree femininity is. We might say the butch woman is less feminine than the valley girl.
Likewise, we'd typically say Clint Eastwood is more manly than, say, Bill Gates. A similar spread of "manliness" for men.
If we're on the same page so far, we're comfortable with the idea that gender has a spectrum - two separate spectrums, one for men and one for women. I don't need you to agree that they intersect at all, just that the concept of "manliness" and "femininity" are not single points in their respective genders.
Now let's look globally. Are the same spectrums universal? In the Middle East, east Asia, Russia, central Africa, and Polynesia... Does feminity look the same?
I'd argue no. A hijab or niqab might evoke feminity in some parts of the world but not in others. Following this, there must be a social component to feminity and manliness. And this component is not genetic. So there must be "something" that exists that's a social construct related to sex.
What should we call this social construct, assuming we agree there is no chromosomal need to wear a niqab?
Academically, gender has evolved to be the word that describes the cultural expectations placed on men and women. These expectations allow for some flexibility for culture and personality.
If you are comfortable with this so far, and we can agree on the above, I'm happy to dive into the fluidity, non-binary, and forget separation of gender and sex as a follow on discussion. But if we disagree about the above, we should sort that before moving on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can't tell the difference between making fun of a public figure and child pornography, you should take a step back.
Do you have evidence of widespread bans for making fun of a public figure ? Making fun of a public figure should unquestionably be allowed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Myocarditis in young men below the age of 18 from the vaccine is real and verified. This was even shown by the CDC during the ACIP meeting for the bivalent booster. It's roughly about 1 in 5000 chance of getting myocarditis, and about 1/3 of the patients are still suffering from it 90 days after diagnosis.
I'm sure it is real, but that's not the point. A fact can be true but still be amplified far beyond its actual significance relative to other things that are also true, and that seems like what's happening here. I'm seeing a lot of people citing the exact same highly-dubious articles, which takes us further from figuring out the empirical truth on a complex set of issues. Those citations are also often accompanied by…
Please don't deny The Science. You sound like an antivaxer.
>A fact can be true but still be amplified far beyond its actual significance relative to other things that are also true, and that seems like what's happening here.
So? If something is true who cares if a lot of people talk about it and like the content? It doesn't appear to be artificially inflated so it is just a lot of people talking about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then they shouldn't have agreed to not joke about that stuff in the first place
Where in the terms does it say you can't make this joke? The enforcement of these things have been completely arbitrary.
Key part being the last sentence here:
"We prohibit targeting others with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals."
Perhaps Twitter does arbitrarily enforce punishment for intentional misgendering. Doesn't change the fact that Babylon Bee shouldn't agree to those terms in the first place if they have no plan on adhering to them.