10 ms·

The author either has a fundamental misunderstanding of the criticisms against "safe spaces" or he's deliberately mischaracterizing them to earn the favor of hi

The author either has a fundamental misunderstanding of the criticisms against "safe spaces" or he's deliberately mischaracterizing them to earn the favor of his classmates. > What she meant by “safe space” was that she was happy to be in an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement. If that's actually how safe spaces were implemented in practice, there'd be little backlash against them. The primary criticism against safe spaces is that they are an excuse to censor dissenting opinions. A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism because their opinions are considered "disrespectful" or even "violent" to transgender people.

toiletfuneral 7y ago
If you every get to know someone who is, you'll find trans people actually do suffer significant violence and disrespect. I know you put those in scare quotes to imply it's not real and I think that's really dishonest.
jedbrown 7y ago
"If wearing a tan suit wasn't deeply unbecoming of a President, there would have been little backlash from conservatives."
shkkmo 7y ago
I am sure safe spaces are implemented in a variety of ways and with varying levels of competence. I would point out that "being opposed to sex-reassignment surgery" is not so much an opinion as it is an ideology. I suspect many safe spaces would be far more open to including people who subscribe to that ideology if those people entered those discussions with a willingness to learn, a desire to honestly explore the pros and cons of that surgery, and a desire to share their own experiences of gender while also learning about other experiences of gender. That is not any easy thing to do and it is especially difficult to do for cisgender people who have little knowledge of the emotional land mines they can trigger by simply relying on the "common sense" they have learned over a lifetime. If there is an honest desire to be included in these discussions, I would highly recommend taking the time to listen and learn before you start sharing your viewpoint so you can understand the effects that your words will have.
- brailsafe 7y ago
  On this specific point, I agree with you, and generally have for some time, but am generally more skeptical than ever of the people on the apparently altruistic inclusivity side. It may be confirmation bias, but the kind of shit I've become aware of is ridiculous. Some examples are the backlash that Bret Weinstein got a few years ago at Evergren, the amount of "Fuck Terfs" that's spraypainted all over my neighborhood because women's shelters don't allow people who only identify as women to be the same as bio-sex females, and the banning of public libraries from inclusion of events like pride on the basis that they allow critics a space to speak. If the genuine desire to have a dialogue was there, it would be more obvious. Even some of my friends who live the social justice life seem to shut down when they don't have script readily indexed to respond to what they deem a threat in regular conversation. I wish this wasn't the case, because I am a liberal person, but believe these things need scrutiny as much as anything else. That's the only way people who are currently suppressed can then be elevated in a sustainable way. Here I'm trying to make distinctions between things like a gay person's human right to marry and a male's ability to identify as a woman and sue female oriented genital grooming places for discrimination on the basis that they have male parts. In one case that human right was denied arbitrarily based on the ideology of doctrine imbued culture and law.
- TravHatesMe 7y ago
  > a desire to honestly explore the pros and cons of that surgery What if these pros and cons were subjective, and someone decided that in the end, the cons outweighed the pros? Would you cast them as an evil person and exile them from your safe space? Would you accept their opinion, respectfully disagree, and move on? It seems that you must either abide by the ideology, censor yourself, or be exiled and called a nazi. This goes against everything that a university is about: free speech and open discussion. > cisgender people who have little knowledge of the emotional land mines they can trigger by simply relying on the "common sense" they have learned over a lifetime. Correct. Cisgendered people represent the majority of the population. Personally I have had maybe one or two opportunities to interact with a transgender person because they make up a tiny percentage of the population. That is not to say that I refuse to be respectful towards them, it shows that the majority of people don't get the chance to interact and learn what to avoid saying. Is everyone really required to learn all these new words / triggers / etc. in order to appease a tiny tiny fraction of the population? Genuinely curious to know your thoughts.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
probinso 7y ago
You have not earned the use of this language. Learn to participate
namirez 7y ago
> * The primary criticism against safe spaces is that they are an excuse to censor dissenting opinions. A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about transgenderism* What a strange example! What is the "dissenting opinion" about sex-reassignment surgery and transgenderism? Is it not for individuals to decided? Why would this even be an issue in the public space. If you're not transgender, does it impact you in any way?
- DamnYuppie 7y ago
  For myself I am not against the procedure. I am against allowing children to do so without the consent of their parent. We don't let children drink, drive, or hold employment until certain ages. Yet is is completely fine for them to have life altering changes done to their bodies at very young ages.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "For myself I am not against the procedure. I am against allowing children to do so without the consent of their parent. We don't let children drink, drive, or hold employment until certain ages. Yet is is completely fine for them to have life altering changes done to their bodies at very young ages." Can you cite numbers on where and how often this is occurring?
  - MrDrone 7y ago
    Can you cite examples of this occurring with any sort of regularity in America? The most I've ever heard of are doctors prescribing puberty blockers - which actually preserves their ability to choose later. Even this is seen as an extreme step and typically only done with multiple doctors signing off. There are appear to be rare outliers and technicalities, but these are single digit exceptions rather than representative of some new norm. https://www.quora.com/What-age-can-children-have-sexual-reassignment-surgery https://www.quora.com/What-age-can-children-have-sexual-reas... https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oregon-teen-sex-change-law/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oregon-teen-sex-change-law...
  - YinglingLight 7y ago
hellomyguys 7y ago
> If that's actually how safe spaces were implemented in practice, there'd be little backlash against them. That's the public perception based on news media. Sure, there may be a minority of "safe spaces" that are how you depicted, but if you include AA, group therapy, and other things of that nature, I think your perception is wrong. >A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism because their opinions are considered "disrespectful" or even "violent" to transgender people. When almost 50% of trans male teens have attempted suicide [1], almost half of all trans people report being verbally or physically harassed [2], and the American Medical Association calling violence against trans people an "epidemic" [3], then yes, I think there is a fair case to be made anti-trans sentiment contributes to violence towards the trans community, just like how anti-black sentiment in the US contributed to violence against black people. Is going into spaces where trans people feel comfortable, to make your case against sex-reassignment surgery something you feel that needs to happen? [1]https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e20174218 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e201742... [2]https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/comedian-s-death-underscores-high-suicide-rate-among-transgender-people-n1067546 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/comedian-s-death-und... [3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/06/15/american-medical-association-responds-to-epidemic-of-violence-against-transgender-community/#2c69fc2b510b https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/06/15/amer...
abjKT26nO8 7y ago
> A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism [sic!] because their opinions are considered "disrespectful" or even "violent" to transgender people. What does "being opposed to sex-reassignment surgery" even mean? I see two options: 1. Being opposed to others having the possibility of undergoing such a surgery. 2. Being opposed to undergoing such a surgery. In the first case, I do believe it's disrespectful of the freedom to do with one's body as one pleases. In the second case, AFAIK nobody forces anybody to undergo such a surgery, so I doubt that anybody understands this position this way. Disclaimer: I also don't like the idea of "safe spaces", however this particular criticism seems ill-founded.
- ramblerman 7y ago
  > In the first case, I do believe it's disrespectful of the freedom to do with one's body as one pleases You aren’t allowed to harm yourself. You could argue that you should but under current laws we protect people from that, mostly. Also doctors have to perform these surgeries in which case their oath would mandate we are certain this procedure isn’t causing harm. And finally and perhaps most importantly. These surgeries can be performed before the age of 18.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "And finally and perhaps most importantly. These surgeries can be performed before the age of 18." Can you cite numbers as to where, and how often, this is happening?
  - sosborn 7y ago
    > You aren’t allowed to harm yourself. You could argue that you should but under current laws we protect people from that, mostly. There is a law against committing suicide, but there aren't any laws about harming yourself. If there were, sugar intake would be regulated and alcohol would be banned. You also don't get arrested if you intentionally cut yourself. > their oath would mandate we are certain this procedure isn’t causing harm That's not what the oath means, and you can see plenty examples of this in practice. Many procedures cause harm and the question is whether or not the harm caused by the procedure outweighs the harm done by not doing the surgery.
thenickb 7y ago
Or... this could be an honest example and you don't have a full understanding of how "safe space" is used. You apply skepticism about a charged thing to a man you don't know who seems to be writing honestly about people he wouldn't normally fit in with and how other people have misunderstood them. Do you have space for self reflection on this? Twitter and MSM run on outrage. Would it be completely shocking to you to learn that you don't know the whole story?
saas_sam 7y ago
The content and tone of the comments replying to you are making your point so hard right now. To me it really demonstrates how trigger-happy people are with certain concepts. If any opportunity presents itself, however tenuous it may be, to "own" someone on the other side, it MUST be taken! The gods of cortisol must be satisfied at all times.
luckydata 7y ago
Put this way, it really makes me think you don't like safe spaces because they hinder your ability to hurt transgender people. It always seem that the only people complaining about systems designed to respect others is the people that are doing the dis-respecting, haven't seen much proof of the contrary so far.
- hellomyguys 7y ago
  Safe spaces is a phrase people use when they don't want to call it these environments for what they actually are, which are spaces for vulnerable members of society to have a place to discuss issues that are relevant to them, without having the already dominant voices in society interjecting, usually in a disrespectful manner.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    That is not at all the definition used in the article which is the point of the OP's comment. If the membership and topics are exclusive based on comfort then it is, by definition, not a safe space for any kind of difficult conversation. It's just a private club.
    - hellomyguys 7y ago
      I think you're misunderstanding who these spaces are for and what purposes they serve. Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs? And since when are all private clubs bad?
      - manigandham 7y ago
        We're talking about the literal definition used in the article, and that does not match up with what you're claiming. There is no limitation on membership to "vulnerable" people, whatever that means, nor is any voice "dominant" by default. > "Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs?" No, but freedom for difficult conversations are the qualifier for a "safe space", not the identity of the individuals and their comfort which would be antithetical to free discussion by all. > "And since when are all private clubs bad?" Nobody said that. The point is that a safe-space as defined in the article is not the same as a private club with limited identities and discussions.
eganist 7y ago
> A common example Do you have a source for why this specific example is common?
dang 7y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

toiletfuneral 7y ago

If you every get to know someone who is, you'll find trans people actually do suffer significant violence and disrespect. I know you put those in scare quotes to imply it's not real and I think that's really dishonest.

jedbrown 7y ago

"If wearing a tan suit wasn't deeply unbecoming of a President, there would have been little backlash from conservatives."

shkkmo 7y ago

I am sure safe spaces are implemented in a variety of ways and with varying levels of competence. I would point out that "being opposed to sex-reassignment surgery" is not so much an opinion as it is an ideology. I suspect many safe spaces would be far more open to including people who subscribe to that ideology if those people entered those discussions with a willingness to learn, a desire to honestly explore the pros and cons of that surgery, and a desire to share their own experiences of gender while also learning about other experiences of gender. That is not any easy thing to do and it is especially difficult to do for cisgender people who have little knowledge of the emotional land mines they can trigger by simply relying on the "common sense" they have learned over a lifetime. If there is an honest desire to be included in these discussions, I would highly recommend taking the time to listen and learn before you start sharing your viewpoint so you can understand the effects that your words will have.

brailsafe 7y ago
On this specific point, I agree with you, and generally have for some time, but am generally more skeptical than ever of the people on the apparently altruistic inclusivity side. It may be confirmation bias, but the kind of shit I've become aware of is ridiculous. Some examples are the backlash that Bret Weinstein got a few years ago at Evergren, the amount of "Fuck Terfs" that's spraypainted all over my neighborhood because women's shelters don't allow people who only identify as women to be the same as bio-sex females, and the banning of public libraries from inclusion of events like pride on the basis that they allow critics a space to speak. If the genuine desire to have a dialogue was there, it would be more obvious. Even some of my friends who live the social justice life seem to shut down when they don't have script readily indexed to respond to what they deem a threat in regular conversation. I wish this wasn't the case, because I am a liberal person, but believe these things need scrutiny as much as anything else. That's the only way people who are currently suppressed can then be elevated in a sustainable way. Here I'm trying to make distinctions between things like a gay person's human right to marry and a male's ability to identify as a woman and sue female oriented genital grooming places for discrimination on the basis that they have male parts. In one case that human right was denied arbitrarily based on the ideology of doctrine imbued culture and law.
TravHatesMe 7y ago
> a desire to honestly explore the pros and cons of that surgery What if these pros and cons were subjective, and someone decided that in the end, the cons outweighed the pros? Would you cast them as an evil person and exile them from your safe space? Would you accept their opinion, respectfully disagree, and move on? It seems that you must either abide by the ideology, censor yourself, or be exiled and called a nazi. This goes against everything that a university is about: free speech and open discussion. > cisgender people who have little knowledge of the emotional land mines they can trigger by simply relying on the "common sense" they have learned over a lifetime. Correct. Cisgendered people represent the majority of the population. Personally I have had maybe one or two opportunities to interact with a transgender person because they make up a tiny percentage of the population. That is not to say that I refuse to be respectful towards them, it shows that the majority of people don't get the chance to interact and learn what to avoid saying. Is everyone really required to learn all these new words / triggers / etc. in order to appease a tiny tiny fraction of the population? Genuinely curious to know your thoughts.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

probinso 7y ago

You have not earned the use of this language. Learn to participate

namirez 7y ago

> * The primary criticism against safe spaces is that they are an excuse to censor dissenting opinions. A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about transgenderism* What a strange example! What is the "dissenting opinion" about sex-reassignment surgery and transgenderism? Is it not for individuals to decided? Why would this even be an issue in the public space. If you're not transgender, does it impact you in any way?

DamnYuppie 7y ago
For myself I am not against the procedure. I am against allowing children to do so without the consent of their parent. We don't let children drink, drive, or hold employment until certain ages. Yet is is completely fine for them to have life altering changes done to their bodies at very young ages.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "For myself I am not against the procedure. I am against allowing children to do so without the consent of their parent. We don't let children drink, drive, or hold employment until certain ages. Yet is is completely fine for them to have life altering changes done to their bodies at very young ages." Can you cite numbers on where and how often this is occurring?
- MrDrone 7y ago
  Can you cite examples of this occurring with any sort of regularity in America? The most I've ever heard of are doctors prescribing puberty blockers - which actually preserves their ability to choose later. Even this is seen as an extreme step and typically only done with multiple doctors signing off. There are appear to be rare outliers and technicalities, but these are single digit exceptions rather than representative of some new norm. https://www.quora.com/What-age-can-children-have-sexual-reassignment-surgery https://www.quora.com/What-age-can-children-have-sexual-reas... https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oregon-teen-sex-change-law/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oregon-teen-sex-change-law...
- YinglingLight 7y ago

hellomyguys 7y ago

> If that's actually how safe spaces were implemented in practice, there'd be little backlash against them. That's the public perception based on news media. Sure, there may be a minority of "safe spaces" that are how you depicted, but if you include AA, group therapy, and other things of that nature, I think your perception is wrong. >A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism because their opinions are considered "disrespectful" or even "violent" to transgender people. When almost 50% of trans male teens have attempted suicide [1], almost half of all trans people report being verbally or physically harassed [2], and the American Medical Association calling violence against trans people an "epidemic" [3], then yes, I think there is a fair case to be made anti-trans sentiment contributes to violence towards the trans community, just like how anti-black sentiment in the US contributed to violence against black people. Is going into spaces where trans people feel comfortable, to make your case against sex-reassignment surgery something you feel that needs to happen? [1]https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e20174218 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e201742... [2]https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/comedian-s-death-underscores-high-suicide-rate-among-transgender-people-n1067546 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/comedian-s-death-und... [3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/06/15/american-medical-association-responds-to-epidemic-of-violence-against-transgender-community/#2c69fc2b510b https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/06/15/amer...

abjKT26nO8 7y ago

> A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism [sic!] because their opinions are considered "disrespectful" or even "violent" to transgender people. What does "being opposed to sex-reassignment surgery" even mean? I see two options: 1. Being opposed to others having the possibility of undergoing such a surgery. 2. Being opposed to undergoing such a surgery. In the first case, I do believe it's disrespectful of the freedom to do with one's body as one pleases. In the second case, AFAIK nobody forces anybody to undergo such a surgery, so I doubt that anybody understands this position this way. Disclaimer: I also don't like the idea of "safe spaces", however this particular criticism seems ill-founded.

ramblerman 7y ago
> In the first case, I do believe it's disrespectful of the freedom to do with one's body as one pleases You aren’t allowed to harm yourself. You could argue that you should but under current laws we protect people from that, mostly. Also doctors have to perform these surgeries in which case their oath would mandate we are certain this procedure isn’t causing harm. And finally and perhaps most importantly. These surgeries can be performed before the age of 18.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "And finally and perhaps most importantly. These surgeries can be performed before the age of 18." Can you cite numbers as to where, and how often, this is happening?
- sosborn 7y ago
  > You aren’t allowed to harm yourself. You could argue that you should but under current laws we protect people from that, mostly. There is a law against committing suicide, but there aren't any laws about harming yourself. If there were, sugar intake would be regulated and alcohol would be banned. You also don't get arrested if you intentionally cut yourself. > their oath would mandate we are certain this procedure isn’t causing harm That's not what the oath means, and you can see plenty examples of this in practice. Many procedures cause harm and the question is whether or not the harm caused by the procedure outweighs the harm done by not doing the surgery.

thenickb 7y ago

Or... this could be an honest example and you don't have a full understanding of how "safe space" is used. You apply skepticism about a charged thing to a man you don't know who seems to be writing honestly about people he wouldn't normally fit in with and how other people have misunderstood them. Do you have space for self reflection on this? Twitter and MSM run on outrage. Would it be completely shocking to you to learn that you don't know the whole story?

saas_sam 7y ago

The content and tone of the comments replying to you are making your point so hard right now. To me it really demonstrates how trigger-happy people are with certain concepts. If any opportunity presents itself, however tenuous it may be, to "own" someone on the other side, it MUST be taken! The gods of cortisol must be satisfied at all times.

luckydata 7y ago

Put this way, it really makes me think you don't like safe spaces because they hinder your ability to hurt transgender people. It always seem that the only people complaining about systems designed to respect others is the people that are doing the dis-respecting, haven't seen much proof of the contrary so far.

hellomyguys 7y ago
Safe spaces is a phrase people use when they don't want to call it these environments for what they actually are, which are spaces for vulnerable members of society to have a place to discuss issues that are relevant to them, without having the already dominant voices in society interjecting, usually in a disrespectful manner.
- manigandham 7y ago
  That is not at all the definition used in the article which is the point of the OP's comment. If the membership and topics are exclusive based on comfort then it is, by definition, not a safe space for any kind of difficult conversation. It's just a private club.
  - hellomyguys 7y ago
    I think you're misunderstanding who these spaces are for and what purposes they serve. Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs? And since when are all private clubs bad?
    - manigandham 7y ago
      We're talking about the literal definition used in the article, and that does not match up with what you're claiming. There is no limitation on membership to "vulnerable" people, whatever that means, nor is any voice "dominant" by default. > "Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs?" No, but freedom for difficult conversations are the qualifier for a "safe space", not the identity of the individuals and their comfort which would be antithetical to free discussion by all. > "And since when are all private clubs bad?" Nobody said that. The point is that a safe-space as defined in the article is not the same as a private club with limited identities and discussions.

eganist 7y ago

> A common example Do you have a source for why this specific example is common?

dang 7y ago

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html