Smoove_B wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:01 pm
malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:42 pm
What do you call a female assigned at birth who is later found to be sterile? They may or may not menstruate.
What did they ask to be called? And when you told them did they acknowledge your request or did they call you the same thing prior to asking or being told what their preference was?
To be clear those are all rhetorical devices.
I get the "cancel culture" element and I don't think she should be "silenced" - and I don't think she has been. Recently someone was commenting online about Brandon Sanderson and his hateful views on homosexuality, based on his religion. That was a new one to me and sure enough, he had made some rather problematic comments in the past (2007), oddly enough associated with JK Rowling and Harry Potter. However, he did revisit his opinions in 2011 and indicated he was wrong.
Fair and she is just a useful example. I'd argue she has effectively been silenced though in major media. She has had a few interviews here and there but her access to media is nothing like what it was before this controversy broke.
Like it or not, the court of public opinion works differently for a guy that sits at your bar vs an international public figure. If they're saying hurtful, backwards and problematic things they should be called out on it. Unless they live in Ohio then they can just teach that to kids without a problem, apparently.
This discussion did remind me of some behavior that I saw personally pre-pandemic. I reffed a tournament up near Quebec where one of the refs kept referring to some folks as 'genuine women'. Specifically in reference to pointing out how the trans person on the crew wasn't one. He was asked to stop. He persisted. He got a light correction in the form of being sat out of a game. He persisted. He was removed from the crew. Seemed fair to me. He shouldn't volunteer in a sport with an outsized representation of trans people.
What was interesting to me is that he was somewhat of a known quantity about being disruptive. Everyone who knew him said that the guy picks fights. And truly I never picked up a hate vibe from him. So I'm not even arguing people shouldn't face consequences for being wrong even if it's not "hateful". I simply disagree with the belief you will obviously know people's feelings based on disagreements, the lack of discussion about true issues that exist in the space, and the understanding that change is a destination and you can't always force it to happen instantly.
Alefroth wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:06 pm
malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:15 pm
More the latter. If you want people to come along with your new idea then you need to win over people to the new idea.
What exactly is the new idea?
Are you truly going to argue we were talking about 'people who menstruate' a decade back? Or seriously grapple with trans identity? Like it or not these are not mainstream ideas. And acting like a mob isn't winning many over.
That people should be treated equally and with dignity? Maybe the marginalized are tired of being gentle with marginalizers. Where would civil rights be if the activists made sure not to hurt anyone's feelings?
Of course people should be challenged. No one is arguing otherwise. But you do that with the truth. You don't exaggerate. You don't bully people into agreement. You disagree politely. You argue with the facts and from humanity. You don't froth up to a lather and berate people into agreement. It doesn't have a history of working. That's all I'm suggesting.