The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

A minor-seeming terminology quibble that has far-reaching effects: the chat control proposal does not belong in human society. People in democratic societies don't have different rights than those under other political systems; everyone has a right to speak freely and expect privacy in their communications, absent very specific situations where there is evidence that what is being discussed is unallowably dangerous to others, i.e. criminal. To tie rights to democracy not only ignores the rights of people in other systems, it makes those rights sound like arbitrary gifts of the government rather than intrinsic features of humanity.

[flagged]

> seems like the obviously neutral choice

It seems very wrongly - because it just «seems» ignorant. Because where you read 'person' the normal and correct action is to search where the reference to the personality is. And in that case, _there is not_, and such lack was clearly expressed.

Again: no, you cannot use 'person' where you do not mean "a collection of special traits". You can go on annoyingly inventing language, but it was already there. And you cannot demand that others adopt your code, which has no real foundation.

Edit:

> seems like the obviously neutral choice

I missed that detail. «Neutral»? Neutral to what?! Gender? We should be obsessed by that?! We should introduce that in salads, in geometry, in this very page?!

Violence serves a purpose - although it doesn't serve this purppose well, it stands in place as a last resort. Removing that resort, what do you propose replaces it for the purposes which must be served?

> California, Washington, Ireland, for example.

You've just named countries. Pick one. Read the actual policy. It might surprise you.

> then you need to argue this based on evidence, rather than simply assuming it.

The fact that people only seem to have the same five examples to argue otherwise – versus the many hundreds of easily-accessible examples that show that men are (for whatever reason¹) more prone to violence? You can't just weaponise the null hypothesis like that: how am I supposed to prove this point in the hypothetical world where it's correct?

If trans women behaved the same as men, you'd expect them to – as a population – behave the same as men. From the evidence I have access to, they don't.

> I entirely agree that [thing I didn't say]

One can't change how reality works by sheer force of rhetoric.² You know full well how I'm using words, here (just as I know how you're using them), and it should be clear what I was trying to say.

What happens when you put people with breasts and soft features and lower-than-average physical strength in a men's prison?

Reactionary policies are rarely good ones, even where it would be better to go back to the way things were. Don't you know you can't go home again? Unless you address the flaws, not just the perceived benefits, of your proposals, I won't see them as thought-through.

Doing the right thing is hard. Working out what the right thing is is hard – and usually painful.³ Do you care more about believing yourself to be right already, or about ultimately doing the right thing? The specific details of this pointless internet argument aside, your strategy here is not one that will help you to learn and improve and become better at making things better.

---

¹: Personally, I place a large portion of the blame on patriarchy. Many men I know are decent people: violent macho behaviour doesn't seem to be inherent.

²: Unless what you seek to alter is the political landscape, of course – but this website is not an effective place to do that.

³: I shy too much from that pain to be confident in making policy decisions myself. I can often, however, spot flaws in bad policy.