It reminds of an old joke:
Conservative: "I keep getting banned for my views"
Rando: "Oh, small government?"
C: "No, not that one"
R: "Oh, so fiscal responsibility?"
C: "Not that either"
R: "So which ones?"
C: "Oh, uh... You know."
Meghan Murphy is a left-wing feminist, she was banned for expressing gender critical views.
That’s just watering down what hate speech is.
Meghan Murphy in particular is a left-wing, socialist, radical feminist, who was raised in a Marxist household. This is no secret, you can search her work online to confirm all this, she's pro-unions, pro-socialism, and speaks against the right on numerous political matters.
Her ban from Twitter was caused by referring to a male (Johnathan/Jessica Yaniv), who was suing female beauticians for refusing to wax his bollocks, as "him".
Now I don't know about you, but I would think if you're going around flashing your testicles to women and demanding they touch them, that is very much a proof of being a man. I mean, you don't find women popping their hairy balls out to be plucked, and haranguing women who politely demur, do you?
Nonetheless, Twitter moderators disagreed. To them, this was the bushy scrotum of a woman. So Murphy was canned.
A) Harm the target, who has gone out of their way to avoid that harm already (by transitioning/changing pronouns)
B) Dehumanize the target in the eyes of others (this person doesn't matter, their wishes are to be entirely disrespected)
seems like a reasonable candidate for hate speech to me.
It's very silly to claim that this is some type of hate.
E: Removed the troll feeding bits.
> neither causes harm
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/transphobia#effect...
> Nor dehumanizes
Intentionally causing harm (see above) and pushing for it to be acceptable for others to cause harm is in fact dehumanizing.
I note you still fail to present any argument other than "I feel like you're wrong"
How does that actually harm him?
He's in an incredibly privileged position, and indeed has enjoyed male privilege for pretty much all of his life.
Should we avoid saying any truth that might slightly upset a public figure, or anyone really, just in case they feel a bit sad if they happen to hear it?
> just in case they feel a bit sad if they happen to hear it
I recommend you read that source I provided again.
E: And a couple others -
https://mentalhealthcommission.ca/resource/transgender-peopl...
https://sci-hub.st/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/ Good paper, but here's a sentence from the conclusion. > Findings underscore the importance of risk factors such as emotional neglect within the family, interpersonal microaggressions, and internalized self-stigma
In addition, what reason do you have to not respect a trans persons identity? Biological sex is already much _much_ more complex than just the XY we're taught in middle school. Klinefelter's and intersex people both exist, as do other blurred lines.
There's also nothing inherent about 'sex == gender' - transgender people have existed throughout history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history
Now then, unless you provide actually interesting input we're done here until you come back with your main :).
As a more concrete counterpoint, here's a news article from last year which includes a lesbian woman describing her rape by a man who calls himself a woman: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385
The editors decided to replace the male pronouns she used to describe him with "they" and "them":
> Another reported a trans woman physically forcing her to have sex after they went on a date.
> "[They] threatened to out me as a terf and risk my job if I refused to sleep with [them]," she wrote. "I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so [they were] a 'woman' even if every fibre of my being was screaming throughout so I agreed to go home with [them]. [They] used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing [their] penis and raped me."
How do you think she must have felt reading this truthful quote of hers mangled into a lie? A rape victim who isn't permitted to have her rape accurately reported, after she had already been shamed into getting into bed with this man by him weaponising the same ideology that censors her now.
Was she guilty of hate speech by describing her own rape?
I read your source by the way, it's very one-sided, and mostly irrelevant to the conversation about speech.
A) Doesn't make her not a woman
B) Doesn't make all trans people scumbags.
I understand the position of the lesbian woman in that story - she is justified in anger, hate and fear, as sad as it is to say.
You're allowed to not be attracted to someone, and trans individuals have to accept that sometimes relationships may not work out as a result of their being trans - it's just a sad but true fact.
> Push down their own beliefs and feelings in case someone who thinks they are the opposite sex reads anything that may be critical of this?
Isn't the quote "facts don't care about your feelings"? All serious modern research points to trans individuals being valid.
> I read your source by the way, it's very one-sided, and mostly irrelevant to the conversation about speech.
You asked how speech leads to harm, I provided an example. I've also uploaded more since then.
Even a rape victim isn't allowed to say that a man raped her, despite him forcing his penis inside of her. Is she supposed to pretend that this is a "woman's penis" or something?
That was an extreme example used to illustrate. The other examples elsewhere in this thread include a man taking an accolade that would usually be reserved for women, and a man going around being creepy to women who provide genital waxing services to other women.
If critics aren't allowed to push aside the gender ideology for a minute and discuss these males as men, it entirely undermines any point they're making about women's boundaries being encroached upon - which is also a harm, and a significant one.
The reason that I responded to your previous post was the importance of this extreme example.
Trans men are men. Trans women are women.
The research supports this.
Scumbags are scumbags, regardless of gender or trans status. Some of the people you listed are scumbags, and one was a woman receiving an award for women.
If you're going to dissolve into whataboutisms, we're done here.
This is an ideological belief. We can also accurately describe them as women who want to be men, and men who want to be women.
Of the three examples we're discussing:
* one raped a woman using his penis - this is what men do, not women
* one tried to get women to touch his male genitals - again, the behavior of a man
* one received an accolade as if he's a woman - but spent most of his life making a highly successful career as a man, using his male privilege to its fullest extent
Can you see why people may prefer to refer to these three as men, not women?
It goes against the essence of socialism and communism.
I know who TERF non-socialist Meghan Murphy is. You can see here that she is not a leftist: https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/06/08/why-i-left-the-left...
She keeps saying she is. She doesn't understand (I mean I'm sure she does, but she's a lying bigot) that socialism and all the wonders of it don't work if youre being a SWERF and TERF. Things don't work that way. You have to want better conditions for every one. Otherwise...how are we giving people equal chances to succeed?
I think the problem is the vast majority of people have no clue what socialism is. Most people have read no socialist texts, but are inundated with right wing and capitalistic propaganda all the time.
tldr: SWERFs and TERFs are not leftists. Like how people like Jordan Peterson (before), Tim Pool, Dave Rubin are all right wingers through and through, but keep pretending they are centrists. You have to act the act. Not just talk. This applies to Meghan Murphy too.
I have spent dozens and dozens and dozens of hours getting into TERFs. Radical feminism didn't originate on the political right, but at this point trans people are dying and in danger. This is abundantly clear to any dyed-in-the-wool socialists in the 2020s. Even if it wasn't clear decades ago. Or even a decade ago.
Unfortunately you showed your true colors deadnaming Jessica and using the incorrect pronouns.
Here's an insightful article she wrote some years ago that dives further into this problem much of "the left" has, framed around their celebration of the prostitution of women: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2011/11/07/why-does-the-left....
She writes:
"While I have long been a supporter of labour rights, of unions, and have counted myself as a fighting member of the working class who has waivered somewhere between socialism and Marxism from the moment I understood the concept of class struggle, I've found myself suddenly misaligned with some of those with whom I share my end of the political spectrum."
"These are the people I vote for. They represent my interests and ideologies and yet, when it comes to the issue of prostitution, it feels as though we've been pitted against one another."
"On one hand there seems to be a distinct lack of class analysis – we forget that there are reasons that some women are prostituted while others are not, that some women have a 'choice' while others do not. On the other, because decriminalization has, in part, been framed as a labour issue (i.e. that this is a job like any other and, therefore, should be treated in the same way any other service sector job is, in terms of laws), the gender and race factors fall to the wayside and we forget that prostitution impacts women and, in particular, racialized women in an inordinate way."
And:
"The reason for a man to buy sex from a woman is, without a doubt, because he desires pleasure without having to give anything in return. This is a male-centered purchase. If we are to define sex as something pleasurable for both parties then how on earth can we define prostitution as sex work? There is something decidedly unprogressive about calling something 'sex' when the act is, in fact, solely about providing pleasure for one party (the male party) without any regard for the woman with whom you are engaging in this supposed 'sex' with. Doesn't this defy the whole enthusiastic consent model?"
"While I certainly support human rights and worker rights, I also support women's rights and believe that, as a feminist, I cannot and will not work towards normalizing the idea that women can and should be bought and sold. I certainly will not promote this as part of my progressive politics."
And much more - the whole article is very much worth reading. Do you not agree that she makes many thoughtful and well-considered points?
The fundamental problem is that within many leftist groups, there is a huge blind spot when it comes to women's issues. It should not be too much to ask that women be spared from male sexual violence, and women be permitted female-only safe spaces away from men.
Like how Tim Pool and his sycophants say he’s a [classic] liberal. As if that means anything to Americans besides code for right-wing. Obviously right wingers can be liberals. Many are. Any one with a nuanced understanding of politics knows that.
Edit: Hilarious. You responded the way you did completely ignoring me having already done the Tim Pool analogy. You’re still going at it Again, have you personally read any socialist or communist or leftist texts? If so, what? It would be embarrassing and shameful for me to be an adult and spout off about different political ideologies without having read up on them.
Please cite some left and right wing texts you have read and understood. Please explain why class solidarity excluding trans and sex workers is still leftist. Write in your own words so I know you understand in-depth nuanced politics and can accept you’re right and I’m wrong.
I wrote my comments to help people reading see the truth. I’m sure with your swagger you will respond in good faith.
Evidence Meghan identifies with ERFs: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2022/12/27/2022-the-year-ter....