5 ms·

> and that you aren't allowed to discuss reality The distinction between gender and sex has been discussed in trans communities to death. What's really happeni

> and that you aren't allowed to discuss reality The distinction between gender and sex has been discussed in trans communities to death. What's really happening here is that someone claims trans women are men, the trans community responds by saying, "sex and gender are different concepts, we discussed that already". And then the original people just keep repeating, "but they're men, that's biology." Even from the perspective of just having a productive conversation, if people aren't bringing anything new to the table -- if it's just noise -- then I think that both individuals and communities have the right to filter out that noise. The marketplace of ideas should filter out arguments that can't evolve or respond to new ideas. If I show up in a science forum and start claiming that evolution is crazy because "no one was alive back then to see it", at first I might get honest responses. But if afterwards I just keep saying the same thing again, eventually the community might decide that it's not their job to get me over that hurdle. And it's fine for them to decide who they want to engage with, there is no Right to Communicate without the Right to Filter[0]. If someone wants to bring a genuinely new argument to the table that doesn't ignore trans responses that have already been given, then maybe there's something to be said there. But I'm honestly really unimpressed with most anti-trans arguments that I hear online, I think most of them add nothing to the conversation at all. [0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/ https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/

luckylion 6y ago
> The distinction between gender and sex has been discussed in trans communities to death. Is that "enough" though? If one group discusses something and comes to some form of consensus, where's the idea coming from that that consensus must be adopted by everyone else as well?
- d_e_solomon 6y ago
  That would be like me telling you I don't like brussel sprouts and you telling me to shut up because brussel sprouts are good. Why is your opinion about a group that you're not a part of suddenly more important?
- danShumway 6y ago
  > where's the idea coming from that that consensus must be adopted by everyone else as well? Well, for two reasons. A) the marketplace of ideas is explicitly designed around the concept that some ideas win, at least at a broad cultural level. Free speech advocates aren't trying to build a world where every idea is treated with equal respect everywhere, they're trying to build a process by which, in general, we move closer to truth[0]. That doesn't mean that the ideas can't resurface in the regular marketplace, but it does mean that for ideas to be taken seriously by the broad, regular population, they have to actually convince people. The anti-trans arguments I see online are mostly just really unconvincing to anyone who's done marginal research on trans communities. I'm not an expert on trans communities, I don't have a lot of diverse friends -- I shouldn't know more about trans arguments than the average TERF does; and yet I regularly find that I do. To look at it from a broader market perspective, is it a failure of the marketplace that none of the restaurants on my street sell ice cream with ketchup and green beans? Or is it a success of the marketplace? The marketplace demands that you be able to actually sell what you have, you have no moral claim to force the marketplace to provide you with customers. More importantly, B) the consensus doesn't need to be adopted by everyone and hasn't been adopted by everyone, but private communities aren't required to engage with ideas that aren't furthering their own conversations/goals. And for better or worse, because some of those private communities are very attractive to the broader public, those communities exercising their Constitutionally protected Freedom of Association means that there are fewer spaces that contrarians can join. But again, that's kind of how the system is designed to work. It's contradictory to say that in a free market, people shouldn't be able to choose where they shop. It's contradictory to say that in a free society people shouldn't be able to choose who they associate with. The irony is that it's the far left candidates like Warren[1] who have had by far the most sensible, market-friendly response to the problem of people being deplatformed. If Facebook/Apple is too big, break it up and enforce antitrust. Don't try to nationalize it, or dictate how people can speak, or get rid of fundamental protections like Section 230. Just get rid of the monopolies and let communities compete for members. Outside of solutions like that, I am very skeptical of any argument that claims to be in support of free speech that doesn't think protesting, boycotting, and public criticism are also speech. A lot of cancel culture falls into those bounds: I see people who are angry about boycotts, public criticism, markets responding to consumer demand, private communities like Twitter choosing who they host. Most of that stuff is free speech. ---- [0]: And there are other goals as well, of course, but that's the main conceit of the "marketplace of ideas" argument. [1]: Doctorow also has some interesting ideas here about revising the CFAA and breaking down some barriers for building competitors, but that's a separate conversation.

luckylion 6y ago

> The distinction between gender and sex has been discussed in trans communities to death. Is that "enough" though? If one group discusses something and comes to some form of consensus, where's the idea coming from that that consensus must be adopted by everyone else as well?

d_e_solomon 6y ago
That would be like me telling you I don't like brussel sprouts and you telling me to shut up because brussel sprouts are good. Why is your opinion about a group that you're not a part of suddenly more important?
danShumway 6y ago
> where's the idea coming from that that consensus must be adopted by everyone else as well? Well, for two reasons. A) the marketplace of ideas is explicitly designed around the concept that some ideas win, at least at a broad cultural level. Free speech advocates aren't trying to build a world where every idea is treated with equal respect everywhere, they're trying to build a process by which, in general, we move closer to truth[0]. That doesn't mean that the ideas can't resurface in the regular marketplace, but it does mean that for ideas to be taken seriously by the broad, regular population, they have to actually convince people. The anti-trans arguments I see online are mostly just really unconvincing to anyone who's done marginal research on trans communities. I'm not an expert on trans communities, I don't have a lot of diverse friends -- I shouldn't know more about trans arguments than the average TERF does; and yet I regularly find that I do. To look at it from a broader market perspective, is it a failure of the marketplace that none of the restaurants on my street sell ice cream with ketchup and green beans? Or is it a success of the marketplace? The marketplace demands that you be able to actually sell what you have, you have no moral claim to force the marketplace to provide you with customers. More importantly, B) the consensus doesn't need to be adopted by everyone and hasn't been adopted by everyone, but private communities aren't required to engage with ideas that aren't furthering their own conversations/goals. And for better or worse, because some of those private communities are very attractive to the broader public, those communities exercising their Constitutionally protected Freedom of Association means that there are fewer spaces that contrarians can join. But again, that's kind of how the system is designed to work. It's contradictory to say that in a free market, people shouldn't be able to choose where they shop. It's contradictory to say that in a free society people shouldn't be able to choose who they associate with. The irony is that it's the far left candidates like Warren[1] who have had by far the most sensible, market-friendly response to the problem of people being deplatformed. If Facebook/Apple is too big, break it up and enforce antitrust. Don't try to nationalize it, or dictate how people can speak, or get rid of fundamental protections like Section 230. Just get rid of the monopolies and let communities compete for members. Outside of solutions like that, I am very skeptical of any argument that claims to be in support of free speech that doesn't think protesting, boycotting, and public criticism are also speech. A lot of cancel culture falls into those bounds: I see people who are angry about boycotts, public criticism, markets responding to consumer demand, private communities like Twitter choosing who they host. Most of that stuff is free speech. ---- [0]: And there are other goals as well, of course, but that's the main conceit of the "marketplace of ideas" argument. [1]: Doctorow also has some interesting ideas here about revising the CFAA and breaking down some barriers for building competitors, but that's a separate conversation.