Ah, there it is. At least you’re willing to say it and not tiptoe around it like a coward.
The reason the scientific community does not endorse the conservative gender ideology, is because it causes much more direct harm than good to human happiness. If we don’t let trans people transition, their lives are so much worse that they are seriously likely to kill themselves. Most of the negative consequences of transition come from bigotry, something that is unequivocally on the bigot, not the trans person. Most people who “detransition” after taking hormones do so because of hate rather than because they realize it wasn’t for them.
There is no direct harm caused to people who aren’t trans so long as they treat other adults as equals, and let children access the help they need.
Trans people are not more likely to be the perpetrators of violence, they’re more likely to be the victims of it. Male predators don’t need to pretend to be a woman to get into women’s bathrooms or intrude on their spaces. The anti trans rhetoric is based on lies.
The biggest thing you need to recognize about your position is that it helps the insanely corrupt and selfish far right political groups like the American GOP. It is a wedge issue used to promote incompetent rulers who hate anyone that isn’t a rich male member of the largest cultural group. Even if you don’t believe you hate trans people, your support allows trans people to be legally persecuted for trying to live. I am not exaggerating, trans people are losing lifesaving treatment and being forced from public life, thanks to the refusal of people like you to stand up against the bigots.
You did prove them right, though. It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.
So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.
Are you all misunderstanding this discussion on puporse? Or do people struggle to understand how replying on Lemmy works? You all are now arguing against me how it’s bigoted to misgender someone.
I will put the discussion into this comment again, just because I hope you seriously just lost track of what was said.
Person says:
That’s all fine and dandy until people change the definition of those words to suit their needs. Then all speech they disagree with is hate speech. Which has already happened.
This gets 10 upvotes, 120 downvotes.
Another person answers:
Let’s get some examples there chief. Link what you think is “fine” and has been labeled hate speech
This gets 72 upvotes, 2 downvotes.
The person replies with:
Sure, lets start with having a penis making you a man, and a vagina making you a woman. Referencing indisputable biology has been called both hate and a phobia more times than I can count.
5 upvotes, 42 downvotes.
And now people go on a tangent how it’s bigoted, dangerous and wrong to misgender people. How the defintion of words change etc.
Are you all dense or something? That’s literally what the person was saying! But by pointing that out you all somehow try to paint the person as bigoted. That’s completely besides the point?
Is someone else seeing what’s going on here?!
And other words change if they are acceptable or not. In our grandparent’s childhoods, it was usual to call a black person a n*****. Now it isn’t, and that’s a good thing, isn’t it?
But that’s not the point of the discussion? The person said that things that used to be fine can suddenly be not tolerated. People downvoted the person and claimed that’s not true.
It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.
Still is fine, you wont go to jail for accidently misgendering someone. At worst you may illicit an awkward cough in the room and maybe someone will take you aside later and be like “bruh they are (other gender) haha” and you would be like “Oh shit! My bad!” and that should typically be the end of it.
I’m a dude with just very long hair, cuz I like its style. I get misgendered all the time from the back, people call me a lady or ma’am all the time.
When they see me up close they often go “Oh geez Im sorry!” and I just laugh and tell them not to worry about it, it happens all the time. Thats about it. Thats the whole interaction.
Thats right, misgendering happens to cis people all the time too, and this type of social interaction is an ancient one that has been around for a millenia.
No one actually gives a shit.
Now if you PURPOSEFULLY misgender someone to try and hurt them…
That is actually a fucking problem and now you are being an asshole. But thats not just for trans folks! That applies to cis people just as much.
Let me ask you this: You walk into a bar with a biker gang, and a big burly dude is in there and you call him a woman, and he informs you sternly (cough) that he is a man, and you keep calling him a lady and are clearly trying to piss him off, you tell me how well that will probably turn out for you.
In no way or form did I say it is okay to misgender someone.
Please try to understand what this discussion was about. It was about the very fact that words and things that were okay to say in the past, are sometimes not okay to say anymore today.
N***** used to just be the word for black people, coming from the word Latin “niger”([ˈnɪɡɛr]) and meaning the color black, almost every Romance language still uses it, but I would strongly suggest not using it in the USA.
yes, I agree that we should all be allowed to say N***** because the only reason we can’t is because of Woke speech police! and while we are at it, why should anyone be upset with me that I point out the fact that the Holocaust never happened, and it was all orchestrated by (((them))) and how we should find a solution to (((them))), perhaps a rather final one.
How do I support the reactionary??? You are arguing against a strawman.
The only thing I “dared” to say is that the original poster has a point. Stuff that no one cared if you said it in the past, can be considered a bigoted thing to say at another time.
And people are losing their minds trying to frame me as someone who argues that misgendering someone is okay or something. Wtf?
the thing the original poster “dared” to say is a commonly accepted reactionary talking point, even with your use of " “dared” " is already highly politically charged.
if you do your best to defend the reactionary, well let’s just say you do need to be somewhat on his side if you are going to do it this vehemently.
Language will always be a moving target. If you said “woman used to mean x and now it means y” you’d be fine. The problem isn’t that language changes with us, it’s equivocation. Using women two different ways in a conversation is a dick move.
I mean people are ‘triggered’ mostly by intentional asshattery. A 60yo coworker was talking to me about his trans (mtf) daughter yesterday and had the pronouns all fucked up, but it was obvious he loves his kid and wants what’s best for her. I think most people would give him some leeway. Going to a place very obviously over-represented by trans people and doing it makes it seem sort of intentional.
It’s a situation where people won’t be triggered by language vs the people here trying to bait people. If you can’t see the relevance I don’t think I can lead you there.
I now see that asking the original poster to provide an example was the bait. Everyone who doesn’t participate in the outrage gets treated like a bigot.
Except the person argued about what IS fine, not what WAS considered fine in the past. The person is literally arguing that we ought to be able to misgender people. They claim it is morally righteous to misgender trans people. Their reasoning is that people are only labeling misgendering as hate speech because they disagree with it, not because it is actually hate speech.
I provided good reasons as to why misgendering and promoting the conservative gender ideology that causes it is harmful, debunking their argument that the perspective is being labeled only due to disagreement. Let’s look back at their original argument.
That’s all fine and dandy until people change the definition of those words to suit their needs. Then all speech they disagree with is hate speech. Which has already happened.
The argument that hate speech laws could be used frivolously to silence those who disagree is a valid hypothetical concern. Where this person fucks up is by claiming things are already being labeled as hate speech even when they aren’t. This is suspect because there aren’t many places that seriously outlaw hate speech, and most of those places have yet to overstep the law in any real way.
In places like the US where people are at best, socially shunned for hate speech, it’s uncommon for people to falsely claim bigotry on a large scale. Usually when a false claim is made, the falsehood is in the description of events, not the moral principle being applied to.
When another poster pushes back, the person claims the conservative gender ideology isn’t hateful and is deemed as such because people disagree with it, and argument I showed to be lacking. It is hateful because it inherently promotes hate and discrimination. You’re trying to run interference for the poster by misunderstanding the moral principle that they appealed to.
They did not appeal to the idea that words get changed to make you look wrong for using the old definition. This would be like if “to flame” was understood to mean criticize, but everyone forgot that usage and then you said “we should flame that guy.” You meant something reasonable but people didn’t understand you. That’s what you claim is the problem when you say:
People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.
The poster claimed that the old definition is actually good and should still be used. I pointed out how that the old definition is problematic, even by the logic of the past. It excludes and includes people it shouldn’t which results in real harm. I laid out the real harm done by those definitions, allowing the poster to make an informed decision on whether to still hold that definition. If they still choose to insist on that old definition that harms a group of people for characteristics they didn’t choose, then they are a bigot. Harming a group for innate characteristics is bigotry.
TLDR: You ironically moved the goalposts and misunderstood what the poster was arguing. I did not prove them right in any way.
This is ridiculous, really. It does feel as if you were bots going aggressively off on a tangent with no connection to the content or context.
Or you are simply unwilling/unable to make a distinction between different levels of communication.
Do you agree that sometimes things were fine to say in the past and now they are considered hate speech?
That was the topic of the discussion.
To prevent you and others from getting caught up in and endless loop of being triggered, I will provide another example instead:
In the past it was okay to address a woman as “Fräulein X” when she was unmarried. And as “Frau X” when she was married (in German). No one cared about that, now, many people will considered it rude an bigoted and call you a sexist when doing it anyway.
Now that I think about it I feel it’s actually quite easy to find a few examples, and the question to the original poster to provide an example was seemingly just bait so you all can get enraged for a bit. And everyone who didn’t participate in the overall outrage, you generously consider and treat as a bigot you have to correct as well.
Do you agree that sometimes things were fine to say in the past and now they are considered hate speech?
That was the topic of the discussion.
That wasn’t the topic of discussion. This was my entire point. You’re the one who changed the argument into something it wasn’t. The person claimed things were being labeled as hate speech ONLY because people disagreed with them. They were not arguing that things were simply rendered offensive. They argued that things were WRONGLY rendered hate speech to silence good arguments.
We were not going off on a tangent, you are.
What I don’t know for certain is whether or not you’re trying to defend bigotry, or if you just didn’t understand the discussion. I suspect it’s a bit of both. You saw this person having their bigotry getting revealed, and then due to enlightened centrism brainrot, you changed the argument in your head into something that was reasonable. This was done to maintain your worldview that the larger trans/hate speech debate is fought between two sides that have reasonable concerns.
The fact is, in this debate, one side is just morally wrong. The rejection of trans people will cause material harm to vulnerable people, while accepting trans people will cause almost no real harm to anyone. It can be reasonably argued that hate speech laws could be weaponized against the people they were supposed to protect, but no one here made those arguments effectively. In fact, most of the time this argument isn’t made effectively, because the people using the argument are really just in favor of hate speech.
You tried to misrepresent someone’s bad argument, not shift to what could have been a good argument.
You did prove them right, though. It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.
So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.
Now quote to me please where I, in my post to which you reacted, tried to defend bigotry.
Especially in which form I said something so bigoted, that it’s okay to call me an asshole, someone with brainrot, a transphobe and someone who defends hate speech.
You assume all kinds of things about me, from a simple post. And fall into hateful rhetoric simply for me not jumping when everyone was supposed to jump, apparently.
It’s almost as if this was bait to get someone to say anything you can deliberately get outraged by to then start hurling insults. No matter discussing in good faith or perhaps asking back first. No, you immediately assumed I was a bigot with “centrism brainrot”.
Ok, I’ll show you where you defend bigotry. You defend it by trying to misrepresent a bigoted argument as I stated before. You call into question whether or not the argument is bigoted:
It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.
So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.
The phrase, “People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.” States that a person is treated as a bigot, not that they are a bigot. You refocus the person called a “bigot” as the victim.
Worse still, you state that they are called a bigot for simply not using new definitions. The issue isn’t so much that they don’t use new definitions, it’s that they use definitions that justify and reinforce bigotry. They use harmful and hateful definitions, and are thus doing bigoted things. I tried not to essentialize them as a bigot, but I did point out how using that definition is bigoted.
A person said something bigoted, I pointed out why it was bigoted. In that original response I didn’t even call them a bigot. I said they were helping bigots by using that argument.
I have also not called you a bigot, just speculated on what you may think. I didn’t even speculate that you’re a bigot, just that you are wrong. If you think I used “hateful rhetoric” by saying you had brainrot, I’m not sorry. People getting called out for defending harmful arguments in the milquetoast way I did isn’t something to be ashamed of.
You keep positioning people who make or defend harmful arguments as the victim, and I frankly have no more time for it. The victims are the people harmed by these arguments, not the people who get rightly criticized for perpetuating it. I care more about the thousands of trans people who are getting denied lifesaving treatment because of anti trans laws. I care more about the people who get bullied or murdered for being queer. I don’t think you getting downvoted and feeling guilty matters compared to the real harmful ideas you’re protecting.
This is such a truckload of virtue signaling. It seems like more and more people jump on this train and it’s borderline fascist. I did make a tongue in cheek comment on how you proved this person correct (something you didn’t even address at all) and you try to frame me because of that comment as someone in the vicinity of bullies and murderes.
In reality, you are the bullies. Everyone who does not walk on egg shells all the time is a hateful bigot that needs to be stomped out immediately. At the same time, I don’t see you comment on misogynistic memes or any other of the bigotry that’s rife on this site. But dare everyone who doesn’t raise their fist when you say so. They better be ready to be insulted.
I’m not going to walk you through why your interpretation of what the original poster said was wrong, I already did. I tired my hardest to explain it to you, and then I speculated as to why you hold the incorrect version of the person’s argument in your mind. You still hold that view in your mind. You failed to grasp my explanation, translating it into insults or personal attacks, probably because reading it accurately might lead you to the conclusion that you were wrong. That what the original poster said wasn’t simply that definitions change, but that they are weaponized unfairly to attack valid perspectives.
You have insulted me directly far more than I have you. Accusing me of virtue signalling, bullying, and being part of a borderline fascist movement. That last one is especially egregious considering the history of fascists murdering trans people and erasing their history. I also don’t know what bigotry you’re talking about that’s rife on this site. Every time I see bigotry on here, people call it out. People even call out things that are merely insensitive.
You need to learn that such things are a part of life and you have to deal with it in order to be a member of society. The existence of progress doesn’t negate the need for hate speech protection. All societies have to change with time and that’s okay.
I think you all forgot the purpose behind policies like freedom of speech and natural rights and that’s why you’re getting all mixed up.
In no way or form did I say it is okay to misgender someone.
Please try to understand what this discussion was about. It was about the very fact that words and things that were okay to say in the past, are sometimes not okay to say anymore today.
Ah, there it is. At least you’re willing to say it and not tiptoe around it like a coward.
The reason the scientific community does not endorse the conservative gender ideology, is because it causes much more direct harm than good to human happiness. If we don’t let trans people transition, their lives are so much worse that they are seriously likely to kill themselves. Most of the negative consequences of transition come from bigotry, something that is unequivocally on the bigot, not the trans person. Most people who “detransition” after taking hormones do so because of hate rather than because they realize it wasn’t for them.
There is no direct harm caused to people who aren’t trans so long as they treat other adults as equals, and let children access the help they need. Trans people are not more likely to be the perpetrators of violence, they’re more likely to be the victims of it. Male predators don’t need to pretend to be a woman to get into women’s bathrooms or intrude on their spaces. The anti trans rhetoric is based on lies.
The biggest thing you need to recognize about your position is that it helps the insanely corrupt and selfish far right political groups like the American GOP. It is a wedge issue used to promote incompetent rulers who hate anyone that isn’t a rich male member of the largest cultural group. Even if you don’t believe you hate trans people, your support allows trans people to be legally persecuted for trying to live. I am not exaggerating, trans people are losing lifesaving treatment and being forced from public life, thanks to the refusal of people like you to stand up against the bigots.
Has anyone ever told you how unfathomably based you are?
You did prove them right, though. It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.
So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.
Are you all misunderstanding this discussion on puporse? Or do people struggle to understand how replying on Lemmy works? You all are now arguing against me how it’s bigoted to misgender someone.
I will put the discussion into this comment again, just because I hope you seriously just lost track of what was said.
Person says:
This gets 10 upvotes, 120 downvotes.
Another person answers:
This gets 72 upvotes, 2 downvotes.
The person replies with:
5 upvotes, 42 downvotes.
And now people go on a tangent how it’s bigoted, dangerous and wrong to misgender people. How the defintion of words change etc.
Are you all dense or something? That’s literally what the person was saying! But by pointing that out you all somehow try to paint the person as bigoted. That’s completely besides the point? Is someone else seeing what’s going on here?!
And other words change if they are acceptable or not. In our grandparent’s childhoods, it was usual to call a black person a n*****. Now it isn’t, and that’s a good thing, isn’t it?
But that’s not the point of the discussion? The person said that things that used to be fine can suddenly be not tolerated. People downvoted the person and claimed that’s not true.
Still is fine, you wont go to jail for accidently misgendering someone. At worst you may illicit an awkward cough in the room and maybe someone will take you aside later and be like “bruh they are (other gender) haha” and you would be like “Oh shit! My bad!” and that should typically be the end of it.
I’m a dude with just very long hair, cuz I like its style. I get misgendered all the time from the back, people call me a lady or ma’am all the time.
When they see me up close they often go “Oh geez Im sorry!” and I just laugh and tell them not to worry about it, it happens all the time. Thats about it. Thats the whole interaction.
Thats right, misgendering happens to cis people all the time too, and this type of social interaction is an ancient one that has been around for a millenia.
No one actually gives a shit.
Now if you PURPOSEFULLY misgender someone to try and hurt them…
That is actually a fucking problem and now you are being an asshole. But thats not just for trans folks! That applies to cis people just as much.
Let me ask you this: You walk into a bar with a biker gang, and a big burly dude is in there and you call him a woman, and he informs you sternly (cough) that he is a man, and you keep calling him a lady and are clearly trying to piss him off, you tell me how well that will probably turn out for you.
What the hell are you talking about?
In no way or form did I say it is okay to misgender someone.
Please try to understand what this discussion was about. It was about the very fact that words and things that were okay to say in the past, are sometimes not okay to say anymore today.
N***** used to just be the word for black people, coming from the word Latin “niger”([ˈnɪɡɛr]) and meaning the color black, almost every Romance language still uses it, but I would strongly suggest not using it in the USA.
??? So you agree?!
yes, I agree that we should all be allowed to say N***** because the only reason we can’t is because of Woke speech police! and while we are at it, why should anyone be upset with me that I point out the fact that the Holocaust never happened, and it was all orchestrated by (((them))) and how we should find a solution to (((them))), perhaps a rather final one.
How does this relate to anything I have written?
because when you support the reactionary, you support this as well
How do I support the reactionary??? You are arguing against a strawman.
The only thing I “dared” to say is that the original poster has a point. Stuff that no one cared if you said it in the past, can be considered a bigoted thing to say at another time.
And people are losing their minds trying to frame me as someone who argues that misgendering someone is okay or something. Wtf?
the thing the original poster “dared” to say is a commonly accepted reactionary talking point, even with your use of " “dared” " is already highly politically charged.
if you do your best to defend the reactionary, well let’s just say you do need to be somewhat on his side if you are going to do it this vehemently.
Language will always be a moving target. If you said “woman used to mean x and now it means y” you’d be fine. The problem isn’t that language changes with us, it’s equivocation. Using women two different ways in a conversation is a dick move.
But I did not say it was a problem that it changes. I pointed out that it did indeed change and for some reason people get triggered by that.
I mean people are ‘triggered’ mostly by intentional asshattery. A 60yo coworker was talking to me about his trans (mtf) daughter yesterday and had the pronouns all fucked up, but it was obvious he loves his kid and wants what’s best for her. I think most people would give him some leeway. Going to a place very obviously over-represented by trans people and doing it makes it seem sort of intentional.
How does this relate to anything I have written?
It’s a situation where people won’t be triggered by language vs the people here trying to bait people. If you can’t see the relevance I don’t think I can lead you there.
I now see that asking the original poster to provide an example was the bait. Everyone who doesn’t participate in the outrage gets treated like a bigot.
I mean I’m trying to be pretty mild and I’m not being a dick to you. I’m also being called a nazi by a handful of people.
Except the person argued about what IS fine, not what WAS considered fine in the past. The person is literally arguing that we ought to be able to misgender people. They claim it is morally righteous to misgender trans people. Their reasoning is that people are only labeling misgendering as hate speech because they disagree with it, not because it is actually hate speech.
I provided good reasons as to why misgendering and promoting the conservative gender ideology that causes it is harmful, debunking their argument that the perspective is being labeled only due to disagreement. Let’s look back at their original argument.
The argument that hate speech laws could be used frivolously to silence those who disagree is a valid hypothetical concern. Where this person fucks up is by claiming things are already being labeled as hate speech even when they aren’t. This is suspect because there aren’t many places that seriously outlaw hate speech, and most of those places have yet to overstep the law in any real way.
In places like the US where people are at best, socially shunned for hate speech, it’s uncommon for people to falsely claim bigotry on a large scale. Usually when a false claim is made, the falsehood is in the description of events, not the moral principle being applied to.
When another poster pushes back, the person claims the conservative gender ideology isn’t hateful and is deemed as such because people disagree with it, and argument I showed to be lacking. It is hateful because it inherently promotes hate and discrimination. You’re trying to run interference for the poster by misunderstanding the moral principle that they appealed to.
They did not appeal to the idea that words get changed to make you look wrong for using the old definition. This would be like if “to flame” was understood to mean criticize, but everyone forgot that usage and then you said “we should flame that guy.” You meant something reasonable but people didn’t understand you. That’s what you claim is the problem when you say:
The poster claimed that the old definition is actually good and should still be used. I pointed out how that the old definition is problematic, even by the logic of the past. It excludes and includes people it shouldn’t which results in real harm. I laid out the real harm done by those definitions, allowing the poster to make an informed decision on whether to still hold that definition. If they still choose to insist on that old definition that harms a group of people for characteristics they didn’t choose, then they are a bigot. Harming a group for innate characteristics is bigotry.
TLDR: You ironically moved the goalposts and misunderstood what the poster was arguing. I did not prove them right in any way.
This is ridiculous, really. It does feel as if you were bots going aggressively off on a tangent with no connection to the content or context.
Or you are simply unwilling/unable to make a distinction between different levels of communication.
Do you agree that sometimes things were fine to say in the past and now they are considered hate speech? That was the topic of the discussion.
To prevent you and others from getting caught up in and endless loop of being triggered, I will provide another example instead: In the past it was okay to address a woman as “Fräulein X” when she was unmarried. And as “Frau X” when she was married (in German). No one cared about that, now, many people will considered it rude an bigoted and call you a sexist when doing it anyway.
Now that I think about it I feel it’s actually quite easy to find a few examples, and the question to the original poster to provide an example was seemingly just bait so you all can get enraged for a bit. And everyone who didn’t participate in the overall outrage, you generously consider and treat as a bigot you have to correct as well.
That wasn’t the topic of discussion. This was my entire point. You’re the one who changed the argument into something it wasn’t. The person claimed things were being labeled as hate speech ONLY because people disagreed with them. They were not arguing that things were simply rendered offensive. They argued that things were WRONGLY rendered hate speech to silence good arguments.
We were not going off on a tangent, you are.
What I don’t know for certain is whether or not you’re trying to defend bigotry, or if you just didn’t understand the discussion. I suspect it’s a bit of both. You saw this person having their bigotry getting revealed, and then due to enlightened centrism brainrot, you changed the argument in your head into something that was reasonable. This was done to maintain your worldview that the larger trans/hate speech debate is fought between two sides that have reasonable concerns.
The fact is, in this debate, one side is just morally wrong. The rejection of trans people will cause material harm to vulnerable people, while accepting trans people will cause almost no real harm to anyone. It can be reasonably argued that hate speech laws could be weaponized against the people they were supposed to protect, but no one here made those arguments effectively. In fact, most of the time this argument isn’t made effectively, because the people using the argument are really just in favor of hate speech.
You tried to misrepresent someone’s bad argument, not shift to what could have been a good argument.
This is my post you reacted to:
Now quote to me please where I, in my post to which you reacted, tried to defend bigotry.
Especially in which form I said something so bigoted, that it’s okay to call me an asshole, someone with brainrot, a transphobe and someone who defends hate speech.
You assume all kinds of things about me, from a simple post. And fall into hateful rhetoric simply for me not jumping when everyone was supposed to jump, apparently.
It’s almost as if this was bait to get someone to say anything you can deliberately get outraged by to then start hurling insults. No matter discussing in good faith or perhaps asking back first. No, you immediately assumed I was a bigot with “centrism brainrot”.
Ok, I’ll show you where you defend bigotry. You defend it by trying to misrepresent a bigoted argument as I stated before. You call into question whether or not the argument is bigoted:
The phrase, “People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.” States that a person is treated as a bigot, not that they are a bigot. You refocus the person called a “bigot” as the victim.
Worse still, you state that they are called a bigot for simply not using new definitions. The issue isn’t so much that they don’t use new definitions, it’s that they use definitions that justify and reinforce bigotry. They use harmful and hateful definitions, and are thus doing bigoted things. I tried not to essentialize them as a bigot, but I did point out how using that definition is bigoted.
A person said something bigoted, I pointed out why it was bigoted. In that original response I didn’t even call them a bigot. I said they were helping bigots by using that argument.
I have also not called you a bigot, just speculated on what you may think. I didn’t even speculate that you’re a bigot, just that you are wrong. If you think I used “hateful rhetoric” by saying you had brainrot, I’m not sorry. People getting called out for defending harmful arguments in the milquetoast way I did isn’t something to be ashamed of.
You keep positioning people who make or defend harmful arguments as the victim, and I frankly have no more time for it. The victims are the people harmed by these arguments, not the people who get rightly criticized for perpetuating it. I care more about the thousands of trans people who are getting denied lifesaving treatment because of anti trans laws. I care more about the people who get bullied or murdered for being queer. I don’t think you getting downvoted and feeling guilty matters compared to the real harmful ideas you’re protecting.
This is such a truckload of virtue signaling. It seems like more and more people jump on this train and it’s borderline fascist. I did make a tongue in cheek comment on how you proved this person correct (something you didn’t even address at all) and you try to frame me because of that comment as someone in the vicinity of bullies and murderes.
In reality, you are the bullies. Everyone who does not walk on egg shells all the time is a hateful bigot that needs to be stomped out immediately. At the same time, I don’t see you comment on misogynistic memes or any other of the bigotry that’s rife on this site. But dare everyone who doesn’t raise their fist when you say so. They better be ready to be insulted.
I’m not going to walk you through why your interpretation of what the original poster said was wrong, I already did. I tired my hardest to explain it to you, and then I speculated as to why you hold the incorrect version of the person’s argument in your mind. You still hold that view in your mind. You failed to grasp my explanation, translating it into insults or personal attacks, probably because reading it accurately might lead you to the conclusion that you were wrong. That what the original poster said wasn’t simply that definitions change, but that they are weaponized unfairly to attack valid perspectives.
You have insulted me directly far more than I have you. Accusing me of virtue signalling, bullying, and being part of a borderline fascist movement. That last one is especially egregious considering the history of fascists murdering trans people and erasing their history. I also don’t know what bigotry you’re talking about that’s rife on this site. Every time I see bigotry on here, people call it out. People even call out things that are merely insensitive.
You need to learn that such things are a part of life and you have to deal with it in order to be a member of society. The existence of progress doesn’t negate the need for hate speech protection. All societies have to change with time and that’s okay.
I think you all forgot the purpose behind policies like freedom of speech and natural rights and that’s why you’re getting all mixed up.
What the hell are you talking about?
In no way or form did I say it is okay to misgender someone.
Please try to understand what this discussion was about. It was about the very fact that words and things that were okay to say in the past, are sometimes not okay to say anymore today.