9 ms·

Amazon won't sell books framing LGBTQ+ identities as mental illness

32 points by dr_dshiv 6y ago

fatbird 6y ago
Good.
dr_dshiv 6y ago
I find this way more concerning than the Dr Seuss kerfuffle. The difference is that Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted their books off the market. I can't defend this book, but from the 4 people I know who have hormonally changed their gender identifies, I do feel like the mental health aspects need more discussion.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
  I’m having a hard time caring about the difference between a corporation that owns the rights to books Dr Seuss wrote and Amazon.
- TotempaaltJ 6y ago
  There's a difference between highlighting the mental health aspects and classifying something as a mental illness. The first can be done safely, the second is harmful.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    If "harmful" is the new litmus test, then Amazon should be taking down a lot more books. (Not that I think they should, but if that's the ostensible standard) https://www.amazon.com/You-Will-Not-Replace-Us/dp/B07KCFYDZL/ https://www.amazon.com/You-Will-Not-Replace-Us/dp/B07KCFYDZL...
    - shorner 6y ago
      I can safely assume that, having clicked that link, I'm going to get a slew of interesting amazon recommendations
      - ethbr0 6y ago
        Amazon's recommendation algorithms don't seem to skew as extreme as YouTube's, in my experience? Probably to be chalked up to the difference between "I'll watch something that shocks me" and "I'll buy something that shocks me."
  - anonymoushn 6y ago
    Should Amazon delist the DSM-II and DSM-III for including homosexuality as a mental illness?
  - PureParadigm 6y ago
    Regardless of your thoughts on whether this particular case qualifies as mental illness, we need to work to de-stigmatize mental illness. Being diagnosed with a mental illness should not be considered any more harmful than being diagnosed with any other type of illness. When you hear someone has an illness, you probably feel compassionate towards them, and mental illness should be no different in this respect.
    - bscphil 6y ago
      I'm in agreement with you about this, obviously, but I have the following additional thought. The word "illness" refers to a disease or disorder. When you have an illness, that means that there is something wrong with you, and you should try to fix it, or seek help to have it fixed. And if it's not a curable illness, it is still generally obvious to everyone, including the person with the illness, that it would be desirable for it to be cured. Mental illnesses are a bit more complicated, but the same principle still mostly applies. For instance, I have diagnosed major depression. I accept that this is an illness, something wrong with me, that I want to get better, and have taken medication and therapy to help it get better. Some sorts of extreme mental illness that affect how a person interacts with the world (claiming to be Jesus Christ, for example) aside, mental illnesses tend to be much like other illnesses. For this reason, even if you completely remove all stigma associated with mental illness, it would still be misguided and harmful to say that LGBTQ people have a mental illness. The reason is that this implies that something is wrong with them, and that they should want to change this. This is emphatically not the case for the overwhelming majority of LGBT people. * LGBT people generally do not want to be cured (with a few exceptions, mostly religious people who believe their identity is "sinful"). The "solution" to discovering that one is LGBT is generally to accept that for what it is. * Most psychiatric experts agree that LGBT people cannot be cured, but can only repress. * LGBT identities are not generally harmful to the people who have them (outside of violence and bigotry they receive from others). Trans people often want to modify their bodies, but this comes from dysphoria (which is not the same concept as being transgender), which is arguably similar to an illness - but it's widely accepted that sex reassignment surgery is the best available solution. In other words, the fact that mental illness currently carries with it a stigma is not the only reason why it's harmful and hurtful to refer to LGBT identities this way. It's also simply inaccurate.
  - selfhoster11 6y ago
    Who decides where the line runs between the two?
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    The second is harmful only because people such as you treat the mentally ill as pariahs and lesser human beings. Do you also believe that classifying something as a corporeal illness is harmful? I can't imagine the frustration felt by psychiatrists and other mental health specialists when they see that saying that a man is in need of help to improve his life, which they can give, is now considered harmful because men such as you consider that worthy of such scorn. I happen to be mentally ill and have received treatment for that, I also happen to be physically ill and also have received treatment for that, it has definitely improved my life that treatment for my ailments exists and that I was classified as such, so that such treatment could be provided by the system of universal healthcare where I live.
- chillfox 6y ago
  The mental health aspect is solved by the experts in that area of the field, the treatment is known. People in the public with little knowledge about the area constantly insisting on it not being solved and that it needs discussion is a bit like arguing about if we should tell people with heart problems to hit the gym while the heart surgeon is recommending a transplant urgently. That is to say very unhelpful and possible harmful.
  - leadingthenet 6y ago
    The “treatment” is FAR from a perfect solution, and you pretending this is a completely solved problem is exactly what leads to tensions when talking about this topic.
    - NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
      You’re right. Hormone therapy, surgical interventions, etc. — they all fail to meet the absolute goal of transition. But they’re good enough until we have something better. What is not better, is arguing that a discussion still needs to be had on whether or not we should consider transgender individuals as if they are deluded and mentally ill.
      - dmpk2k 6y ago
        > What is not better, is arguing that a discussion still needs to be had on whether or not we should consider transgender individuals as if they are [...] mentally ill. Why?
        NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
        Because simply put it is arguing that people who are proven to be physically wired in a particular way are merely living a delusion. It is easy to not be fully aware of the state of research on this topic if it doesn’t affect you, but as a trans woman, I am extremely familiar with what I’m talking about.
- BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
  > The difference is that Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted their books off the market. Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted to not distribute a book. Amazon Inc wants to not distribute a book. I don't see the difference?
  - spc476 6y ago
    Dr. Seuss Enterprices probably own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute.
    - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
      > Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. I'm not sure why you think that's germane. Amazon Inc owns the privilege of choosing what they offer for sale just like any other business. This is free enterprise, my friend. Should we also demand that vegan grocers sell meat? Are we to raise a ruckus if our local 7-11 doesn't also serve eggplant parm with its taquitos?
      - carlio 6y ago
        I think the difference is one says "we don't want to sell our book" and the other says "we don't want to sell your book". Of course it's free market, I don't have a huge issue with either decision, but I think that's the nuance the above poster was getting at.
        BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
        That doesn't explain why they think that that detail is germane to this conversation. I bet they wouldn't have a problem with someone saying "I'm ok with my spit in my mouth but not your spit." I get to decide what goes in my mouth, and you get to decide what goes in your mouth, yeah? I don't care whether you want your spit to be in my mouth. We both get to decide for ourselves.
mpfundstein 6y ago
corporates controlling free speech. what can go wrong?
- dwardu 6y ago
  You probably read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury.
- dartharva 6y ago
  It's a retailer controlling what it wants to sell, not a "corporate controlling free speech".
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    It’s a monopoly or at best an oligopoly hurting free speech and open exchange of information, with actions that are as broadly influential and damaging as a government taking the same actions. And even leaving that aside, free speech as a principle matters everywhere - not just with the government.
- brtkdotse 6y ago
  No, this is free enterprise. Nothing stops the authors selling the books through other vendors, or starting a blog about, or tweeting or standing next to the freeway with a sign. If _the government_ stopped them from doing anything of the above, that would be a free speech hinderence. Now it's just business.
  - jpxw 6y ago
    What’s your stance on “bake the cake”? Do you think the bakers should have been forced to bake the gay couple a cake?
    - eesmith 6y ago
      Two very different points. Christian book stores can't exclude Hindus from buying their books. One upon a time they could, but that's now illegal. There is no law saying Christian book stores must stock the Bhagavad Gita. There's also no law saying Amazon must stock certain books. But there are laws preventing Amazon from excluding certain classes of people as clients. To your question, the Supreme Court has said that lack of religious neutrality by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was inappropriate, in such a way that the case should be overturned.
secondcoming 6y ago
It'll still sell books that advocate for the death of homosexuals though. I suppose there'd be too much bad PR around not selling those.
- Henk0 6y ago
  Taking the risk of violating HN policy here, but that gave me a good chuckle. I guess child sacrifice and wanton genocide is also on the whitelist
  - lukeramsden 6y ago
    No problem with almost-pedophilia too! https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lolita-Penguin-Classics-Vladimir-Nabokov/dp/0141182539 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lolita-Penguin-Classics-Vladimir-Na...
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  Took me a while to realize you're talking about a few very specific book (or maybe even just one of them)
franczesko 6y ago
I can't judge the book, but the concept of "identities" is not grounded in science. How the latter can develop in such environment? Lack of option to publicly discuss such topics (this one itself is pretty much public already) with a book as a medium, is very strange and I can't imagine other reasons of banning it on Amazon, other than political ones...
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  The concept of “identities” is grounded no more or less in science than about any else dealt with in psychiatry or psychology, to be honest. It is certainly not exact science, it is certainly not hard science, and one may in fact debate whether it can be called “science” at all, but it's certainly not any different from the standard of rigor generally employed in such fields. It also isn't much different than many of the abstractions used in, say, linguistics, which are very much in want of any actual definition.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  The concept of identity is useful insofar as a person remains stable throughout their lifespan. We don’t expect people to be chaotically random or perfectly ordered.
throwawaysea 6y ago
From what I’ve heard, Amazon’s internal politics and culture has become as influenced by far left activism as the other big tech companies. This particular book ban is just the latest visible symptom of their bias. Like all other powerful institutions that have been taken over by ideologues, they cannot be trusted with the power they have. Moderate leftists, centrists, and conservatives should be highly cautious of the power wielded by big tech, as their viewpoints and culture will be the ones suppressed by these institutions’ authoritarian actions. It is abominable that Amazom will not permit open discussions and diverse perspectives on controversial and highly debated issues like gender identity. The author of this now-banned book shared his perspective on the ban at https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/02/when-amazon-erased-my-book https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/02/when-amaz.... It‘s not just this book either. Experts like Debra Soh have seen repeated bans and reinstatements of her book “The End of Gender” (https://mobile.twitter.com/DrDebraSoh/status/1364646879305293827 https://mobile.twitter.com/DrDebraSoh/status/136464687930529...). Abigail Shrier, whose book “Irreversible” has also been subject to bans, wrote about the dangerous rise of corporate censorship recently, highlighting Amazon’s use of a vague “hate speech” policy (https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/book-banning-in-an-age-of-amazon https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/book-banning-in-an-age-...). Ironically, for a company that claims to be customer focused, these bans are not the right thing for customers either since these books have been Amazon best sellers (https://notthebee.com/article/amazon-and-target-have-been-quietly-disappearing-books-that-are-critical-transgender-ideology https://notthebee.com/article/amazon-and-target-have-been-qu...). It’s a sad change for a company that once had a strong stance against censoring books, as is tradition among bookshops, but this change of heart isn’t limited to books. Amazon has been increasingly and silently curating content from everything they own - whether it is AWS (which deplatformed Parler) or Prime Video (blocking documentaries that go against BLM narrative), or other things (see https://www.foxnews.com/media/amazon-cancel-censor-content-clarence-thomas-michael-brown-gender-books https://www.foxnews.com/media/amazon-cancel-censor-content-c...).
- heterodoxxed 6y ago
  | influenced by far left activism If that were even remotely true, they would be supporting unions.
ultraklempo 6y ago
Burn them books!
127 6y ago
1984, Brave New World, and now Fahrenheit 451. Reading these books as a kid I thought holy hell, what an awful place to live. Now they are all becoming true. It's weird.
- tim333 6y ago
  Though those were more about government censorship rather than a private bookseller deciding what books to stock.
  - leadingthenet 6y ago
    How quick people are to defend ubiquitous megacorps from accusations of censorship, as though it not being done by the government somehow makes it ok. All under the guise of being "private" entities, of course.
  - t0mbstone 6y ago
    There's a certain point where private organizations wield almost as much power as the government. At what point do we, as a society, recognize this is a problem and start regulating those companies to force them to operate for the good of society instead of just for profit?
- akvadrako 6y ago
  1984 was set in the future but Orwell was attempting to describe the attitude he saw around him at the time. And I'm pretty sure more books were censored in the past.
arthurcolle 6y ago
How could one formulate an experiment that would enable a research group to determine whether the higher suicide incidence rate in individuals identifying as transgendered be attributed to 1) underlying mental illness or 2) despite performing surgery and therapeutic measures that enables these individuals to fulfill their own personal desires in these areas, are still not satisfied (either based on social or internal psychological pressures) or 3) something else? Truly honestly curious. I can't admit to understanding the state of mind in this group of clearly marginalized people, but I can't wrap my mind around the decision to not allow others as well as these same people to freely discuss what is effectively open research. Aren't there statistics that seem to indicate an even higher suicide attempt rate post-op? This seems like something that should be discussed, if it is true (and if its not, then even more so... to set the record straight).
- mft_ 6y ago
  3) Dealing with the constant discrimination and unpleasantness that society seems to inflict on such people?
  - arthurcolle 6y ago
    Pretty sure I covered that in 2)
- NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
  This post’s comment section is rapidly turning into a train wreck, so allow me to help. The highest suicide rate in any cohort of transgender individuals is for those who are not undergoing treatment, which is typically a combination of some or all: hormone therapy, social transitioning, counseling, and surgical interventions. As far as surgical “regret” is concerned, of all elective procedures, sexual reassignment surgery has the lowest regret rate of all.
  - arthurcolle 6y ago
    Agree on your first comment - my intention was not to add any fuel to the fire, but I think it's unfortunate that this topic is so divisive and that's why I tried my very best to avoid any nuance of opinion in my honest inquiry. That being said, how can you quantify your response regarding surgical regret in your answer formally?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dmje 6y ago
As someone else said in this thread, there's a difference between an open dialogue about the mental health impact when dealing with sexual identity, and identifying this sexual identity as "illness". That's a subtle distinction, and one which itself needs discussion. Talking about a thing is always, always better than not taking about it. That should be the default stance, IMO.
disgruntled101 6y ago
We need to keep the internet inclusive that's why we must exclude all dissenting opinions
ffpip 6y ago
https://archive.is/3qNlP https://archive.is/3qNlP
guender 6y ago
We all know what’s coming next. They are going to stop selling authors they deem as racially and gender insensitive. Get your complete works of Bukowski while you still can. To be consistent they should very clearly ban the Bible.
Rochus 6y ago
This gives the smaller vendors a chance. Competition is good for business.
Tade0 6y ago
Weird decision. My experience is that people who read and whose opinion is easily influenced are a very small group which, among others, includes my conspiracy theorist uncle. I'm assuming of course that the underlying reason to remove them is to not display such ideas to the public. Then again few neo-nazis actually read Mein Kampf because they well, don't read - especially something that's almost 400 pages long (or 700 in the non-abridged version).
disgruntled101 6y ago
At the risk of having too hot of a take. What Amazon and other corporations are doing is the equivalent of ideological bikeshedding, inflaming different subcultures to fight amongst each other in order to ignore the elephant in the room. Mainly the fact that the elites have too much power. This is a blatant bait for the alt right movement to tear itself to pieces with the leftist movement which incidentally is playing in the corporations hands by suppressing all dissent via cancel culture (that is also sanctioned by corporations, as long as it doesnt touch their bottom line)
- dr_dshiv 6y ago
  I can follow this viewpoint. I think it is probably emergent vs conspiratorial. But there is no question that most businesses would rather deal with microagressions than unionization.
tim333 6y ago
For those curious about the book the Amazon reviews are still available in Google's cache https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gtR71XbEdtQJ:https://www.amazon.com/When-Harry-Became-Sally-Transgender/product-reviews/1641770481%3FpageNumber%3D2+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=eg https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gtR71X...
doggodaddo78 6y ago
Inverted totalitarianism: ubiquitous, megaplatforms deciding what we can and can't see, what we can and can't do, and locking us out of nearly everything arbitrarily under the "ooh, they're a company, so they can do whatever they want" mantra. They are the state because they bought and paid for enough politicians, so this "mom & pop shop doesn't have to sell porn"-defense doesn't apply. In The Friends of Voltaire, [Beatrice] Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. - bad ol' Wikipedia. If megaplatforms are allowed to pick and choose writing, they can and will censor anything.
t0mbstone 6y ago
Maybe Amazon should stop selling religious books like the Bible, while they are at it? If they are going to start censoring which books they sell, they might as well start with the one that has caused the most deaths throughout human history... /s

32 points by dr_dshiv 6y ago

Good.

I find this way more concerning than the Dr Seuss kerfuffle. The difference is that Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted their books off the market. I can't defend this book, but from the 4 people I know who have hormonally changed their gender identifies, I do feel like the mental health aspects need more discussion.

fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
I’m having a hard time caring about the difference between a corporation that owns the rights to books Dr Seuss wrote and Amazon.
TotempaaltJ 6y ago
There's a difference between highlighting the mental health aspects and classifying something as a mental illness. The first can be done safely, the second is harmful.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  If "harmful" is the new litmus test, then Amazon should be taking down a lot more books. (Not that I think they should, but if that's the ostensible standard) https://www.amazon.com/You-Will-Not-Replace-Us/dp/B07KCFYDZL/ https://www.amazon.com/You-Will-Not-Replace-Us/dp/B07KCFYDZL...
  - shorner 6y ago
    I can safely assume that, having clicked that link, I'm going to get a slew of interesting amazon recommendations
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      Amazon's recommendation algorithms don't seem to skew as extreme as YouTube's, in my experience? Probably to be chalked up to the difference between "I'll watch something that shocks me" and "I'll buy something that shocks me."
- anonymoushn 6y ago
  Should Amazon delist the DSM-II and DSM-III for including homosexuality as a mental illness?
- PureParadigm 6y ago
  Regardless of your thoughts on whether this particular case qualifies as mental illness, we need to work to de-stigmatize mental illness. Being diagnosed with a mental illness should not be considered any more harmful than being diagnosed with any other type of illness. When you hear someone has an illness, you probably feel compassionate towards them, and mental illness should be no different in this respect.
  - bscphil 6y ago
    I'm in agreement with you about this, obviously, but I have the following additional thought. The word "illness" refers to a disease or disorder. When you have an illness, that means that there is something wrong with you, and you should try to fix it, or seek help to have it fixed. And if it's not a curable illness, it is still generally obvious to everyone, including the person with the illness, that it would be desirable for it to be cured. Mental illnesses are a bit more complicated, but the same principle still mostly applies. For instance, I have diagnosed major depression. I accept that this is an illness, something wrong with me, that I want to get better, and have taken medication and therapy to help it get better. Some sorts of extreme mental illness that affect how a person interacts with the world (claiming to be Jesus Christ, for example) aside, mental illnesses tend to be much like other illnesses. For this reason, even if you completely remove all stigma associated with mental illness, it would still be misguided and harmful to say that LGBTQ people have a mental illness. The reason is that this implies that something is wrong with them, and that they should want to change this. This is emphatically not the case for the overwhelming majority of LGBT people. * LGBT people generally do not want to be cured (with a few exceptions, mostly religious people who believe their identity is "sinful"). The "solution" to discovering that one is LGBT is generally to accept that for what it is. * Most psychiatric experts agree that LGBT people cannot be cured, but can only repress. * LGBT identities are not generally harmful to the people who have them (outside of violence and bigotry they receive from others). Trans people often want to modify their bodies, but this comes from dysphoria (which is not the same concept as being transgender), which is arguably similar to an illness - but it's widely accepted that sex reassignment surgery is the best available solution. In other words, the fact that mental illness currently carries with it a stigma is not the only reason why it's harmful and hurtful to refer to LGBT identities this way. It's also simply inaccurate.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  Who decides where the line runs between the two?
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  The second is harmful only because people such as you treat the mentally ill as pariahs and lesser human beings. Do you also believe that classifying something as a corporeal illness is harmful? I can't imagine the frustration felt by psychiatrists and other mental health specialists when they see that saying that a man is in need of help to improve his life, which they can give, is now considered harmful because men such as you consider that worthy of such scorn. I happen to be mentally ill and have received treatment for that, I also happen to be physically ill and also have received treatment for that, it has definitely improved my life that treatment for my ailments exists and that I was classified as such, so that such treatment could be provided by the system of universal healthcare where I live.
chillfox 6y ago
The mental health aspect is solved by the experts in that area of the field, the treatment is known. People in the public with little knowledge about the area constantly insisting on it not being solved and that it needs discussion is a bit like arguing about if we should tell people with heart problems to hit the gym while the heart surgeon is recommending a transplant urgently. That is to say very unhelpful and possible harmful.
- leadingthenet 6y ago
  The “treatment” is FAR from a perfect solution, and you pretending this is a completely solved problem is exactly what leads to tensions when talking about this topic.
  - NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
    You’re right. Hormone therapy, surgical interventions, etc. — they all fail to meet the absolute goal of transition. But they’re good enough until we have something better. What is not better, is arguing that a discussion still needs to be had on whether or not we should consider transgender individuals as if they are deluded and mentally ill.
    - dmpk2k 6y ago
      > What is not better, is arguing that a discussion still needs to be had on whether or not we should consider transgender individuals as if they are [...] mentally ill. Why?
      - NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
        Because simply put it is arguing that people who are proven to be physically wired in a particular way are merely living a delusion. It is easy to not be fully aware of the state of research on this topic if it doesn’t affect you, but as a trans woman, I am extremely familiar with what I’m talking about.
BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
> The difference is that Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted their books off the market. Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted to not distribute a book. Amazon Inc wants to not distribute a book. I don't see the difference?
- spc476 6y ago
  Dr. Seuss Enterprices probably own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute.
  - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
    > Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. I'm not sure why you think that's germane. Amazon Inc owns the privilege of choosing what they offer for sale just like any other business. This is free enterprise, my friend. Should we also demand that vegan grocers sell meat? Are we to raise a ruckus if our local 7-11 doesn't also serve eggplant parm with its taquitos?
    - carlio 6y ago
      I think the difference is one says "we don't want to sell our book" and the other says "we don't want to sell your book". Of course it's free market, I don't have a huge issue with either decision, but I think that's the nuance the above poster was getting at.
      - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
        That doesn't explain why they think that that detail is germane to this conversation. I bet they wouldn't have a problem with someone saying "I'm ok with my spit in my mouth but not your spit." I get to decide what goes in my mouth, and you get to decide what goes in your mouth, yeah? I don't care whether you want your spit to be in my mouth. We both get to decide for ourselves.

mpfundstein 6y ago

corporates controlling free speech. what can go wrong?

dwardu 6y ago
You probably read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury.
dartharva 6y ago
It's a retailer controlling what it wants to sell, not a "corporate controlling free speech".
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  It’s a monopoly or at best an oligopoly hurting free speech and open exchange of information, with actions that are as broadly influential and damaging as a government taking the same actions. And even leaving that aside, free speech as a principle matters everywhere - not just with the government.
brtkdotse 6y ago
No, this is free enterprise. Nothing stops the authors selling the books through other vendors, or starting a blog about, or tweeting or standing next to the freeway with a sign. If _the government_ stopped them from doing anything of the above, that would be a free speech hinderence. Now it's just business.
- jpxw 6y ago
  What’s your stance on “bake the cake”? Do you think the bakers should have been forced to bake the gay couple a cake?
  - eesmith 6y ago
    Two very different points. Christian book stores can't exclude Hindus from buying their books. One upon a time they could, but that's now illegal. There is no law saying Christian book stores must stock the Bhagavad Gita. There's also no law saying Amazon must stock certain books. But there are laws preventing Amazon from excluding certain classes of people as clients. To your question, the Supreme Court has said that lack of religious neutrality by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was inappropriate, in such a way that the case should be overturned.

secondcoming 6y ago

It'll still sell books that advocate for the death of homosexuals though. I suppose there'd be too much bad PR around not selling those.

Henk0 6y ago
Taking the risk of violating HN policy here, but that gave me a good chuckle. I guess child sacrifice and wanton genocide is also on the whitelist
- lukeramsden 6y ago
  No problem with almost-pedophilia too! https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lolita-Penguin-Classics-Vladimir-Nabokov/dp/0141182539 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lolita-Penguin-Classics-Vladimir-Na...
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
Took me a while to realize you're talking about a few very specific book (or maybe even just one of them)

franczesko 6y ago

I can't judge the book, but the concept of "identities" is not grounded in science. How the latter can develop in such environment? Lack of option to publicly discuss such topics (this one itself is pretty much public already) with a book as a medium, is very strange and I can't imagine other reasons of banning it on Amazon, other than political ones...

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
The concept of “identities” is grounded no more or less in science than about any else dealt with in psychiatry or psychology, to be honest. It is certainly not exact science, it is certainly not hard science, and one may in fact debate whether it can be called “science” at all, but it's certainly not any different from the standard of rigor generally employed in such fields. It also isn't much different than many of the abstractions used in, say, linguistics, which are very much in want of any actual definition.
threatofrain 6y ago
The concept of identity is useful insofar as a person remains stable throughout their lifespan. We don’t expect people to be chaotically random or perfectly ordered.

throwawaysea 6y ago

From what I’ve heard, Amazon’s internal politics and culture has become as influenced by far left activism as the other big tech companies. This particular book ban is just the latest visible symptom of their bias. Like all other powerful institutions that have been taken over by ideologues, they cannot be trusted with the power they have. Moderate leftists, centrists, and conservatives should be highly cautious of the power wielded by big tech, as their viewpoints and culture will be the ones suppressed by these institutions’ authoritarian actions. It is abominable that Amazom will not permit open discussions and diverse perspectives on controversial and highly debated issues like gender identity. The author of this now-banned book shared his perspective on the ban at https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/02/when-amazon-erased-my-book https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/02/when-amaz.... It‘s not just this book either. Experts like Debra Soh have seen repeated bans and reinstatements of her book “The End of Gender” (https://mobile.twitter.com/DrDebraSoh/status/1364646879305293827 https://mobile.twitter.com/DrDebraSoh/status/136464687930529...). Abigail Shrier, whose book “Irreversible” has also been subject to bans, wrote about the dangerous rise of corporate censorship recently, highlighting Amazon’s use of a vague “hate speech” policy (https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/book-banning-in-an-age-of-amazon https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/book-banning-in-an-age-...). Ironically, for a company that claims to be customer focused, these bans are not the right thing for customers either since these books have been Amazon best sellers (https://notthebee.com/article/amazon-and-target-have-been-quietly-disappearing-books-that-are-critical-transgender-ideology https://notthebee.com/article/amazon-and-target-have-been-qu...). It’s a sad change for a company that once had a strong stance against censoring books, as is tradition among bookshops, but this change of heart isn’t limited to books. Amazon has been increasingly and silently curating content from everything they own - whether it is AWS (which deplatformed Parler) or Prime Video (blocking documentaries that go against BLM narrative), or other things (see https://www.foxnews.com/media/amazon-cancel-censor-content-clarence-thomas-michael-brown-gender-books https://www.foxnews.com/media/amazon-cancel-censor-content-c...).

heterodoxxed 6y ago
| influenced by far left activism If that were even remotely true, they would be supporting unions.

ultraklempo 6y ago

Burn them books!

127 6y ago

1984, Brave New World, and now Fahrenheit 451. Reading these books as a kid I thought holy hell, what an awful place to live. Now they are all becoming true. It's weird.

tim333 6y ago
Though those were more about government censorship rather than a private bookseller deciding what books to stock.
- leadingthenet 6y ago
  How quick people are to defend ubiquitous megacorps from accusations of censorship, as though it not being done by the government somehow makes it ok. All under the guise of being "private" entities, of course.
- t0mbstone 6y ago
  There's a certain point where private organizations wield almost as much power as the government. At what point do we, as a society, recognize this is a problem and start regulating those companies to force them to operate for the good of society instead of just for profit?
akvadrako 6y ago
1984 was set in the future but Orwell was attempting to describe the attitude he saw around him at the time. And I'm pretty sure more books were censored in the past.

arthurcolle 6y ago

How could one formulate an experiment that would enable a research group to determine whether the higher suicide incidence rate in individuals identifying as transgendered be attributed to 1) underlying mental illness or 2) despite performing surgery and therapeutic measures that enables these individuals to fulfill their own personal desires in these areas, are still not satisfied (either based on social or internal psychological pressures) or 3) something else? Truly honestly curious. I can't admit to understanding the state of mind in this group of clearly marginalized people, but I can't wrap my mind around the decision to not allow others as well as these same people to freely discuss what is effectively open research. Aren't there statistics that seem to indicate an even higher suicide attempt rate post-op? This seems like something that should be discussed, if it is true (and if its not, then even more so... to set the record straight).

mft_ 6y ago
3) Dealing with the constant discrimination and unpleasantness that society seems to inflict on such people?
- arthurcolle 6y ago
  Pretty sure I covered that in 2)
NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
This post’s comment section is rapidly turning into a train wreck, so allow me to help. The highest suicide rate in any cohort of transgender individuals is for those who are not undergoing treatment, which is typically a combination of some or all: hormone therapy, social transitioning, counseling, and surgical interventions. As far as surgical “regret” is concerned, of all elective procedures, sexual reassignment surgery has the lowest regret rate of all.
- arthurcolle 6y ago
  Agree on your first comment - my intention was not to add any fuel to the fire, but I think it's unfortunate that this topic is so divisive and that's why I tried my very best to avoid any nuance of opinion in my honest inquiry. That being said, how can you quantify your response regarding surgical regret in your answer formally?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dmje 6y ago

As someone else said in this thread, there's a difference between an open dialogue about the mental health impact when dealing with sexual identity, and identifying this sexual identity as "illness". That's a subtle distinction, and one which itself needs discussion. Talking about a thing is always, always better than not taking about it. That should be the default stance, IMO.

disgruntled101 6y ago

We need to keep the internet inclusive that's why we must exclude all dissenting opinions

ffpip 6y ago

https://archive.is/3qNlP https://archive.is/3qNlP

guender 6y ago

We all know what’s coming next. They are going to stop selling authors they deem as racially and gender insensitive. Get your complete works of Bukowski while you still can. To be consistent they should very clearly ban the Bible.

Rochus 6y ago

This gives the smaller vendors a chance. Competition is good for business.

Tade0 6y ago

Weird decision. My experience is that people who read and whose opinion is easily influenced are a very small group which, among others, includes my conspiracy theorist uncle. I'm assuming of course that the underlying reason to remove them is to not display such ideas to the public. Then again few neo-nazis actually read Mein Kampf because they well, don't read - especially something that's almost 400 pages long (or 700 in the non-abridged version).

disgruntled101 6y ago

At the risk of having too hot of a take. What Amazon and other corporations are doing is the equivalent of ideological bikeshedding, inflaming different subcultures to fight amongst each other in order to ignore the elephant in the room. Mainly the fact that the elites have too much power. This is a blatant bait for the alt right movement to tear itself to pieces with the leftist movement which incidentally is playing in the corporations hands by suppressing all dissent via cancel culture (that is also sanctioned by corporations, as long as it doesnt touch their bottom line)

dr_dshiv 6y ago
I can follow this viewpoint. I think it is probably emergent vs conspiratorial. But there is no question that most businesses would rather deal with microagressions than unionization.

tim333 6y ago

For those curious about the book the Amazon reviews are still available in Google's cache https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gtR71XbEdtQJ:https://www.amazon.com/When-Harry-Became-Sally-Transgender/product-reviews/1641770481%3FpageNumber%3D2+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=eg https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gtR71X...

doggodaddo78 6y ago

Inverted totalitarianism: ubiquitous, megaplatforms deciding what we can and can't see, what we can and can't do, and locking us out of nearly everything arbitrarily under the "ooh, they're a company, so they can do whatever they want" mantra. They are the state because they bought and paid for enough politicians, so this "mom & pop shop doesn't have to sell porn"-defense doesn't apply. In The Friends of Voltaire, [Beatrice] Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. - bad ol' Wikipedia. If megaplatforms are allowed to pick and choose writing, they can and will censor anything.

t0mbstone 6y ago

Maybe Amazon should stop selling religious books like the Bible, while they are at it? If they are going to start censoring which books they sell, they might as well start with the one that has caused the most deaths throughout human history... /s