8 ms·

No, because those aren't even remotely similar things. It wouldn't be a "hate crime" to call a Catholic a Protestant, or a Gay person a Straight person or a Bla

No, because those aren't even remotely similar things. It wouldn't be a "hate crime" to call a Catholic a Protestant, or a Gay person a Straight person or a Black person a white person. It would be a hateful to deny them rights or to call for abuse. In this instance the "hate crime" is merely saying someone's biological sex is x, even if they say they are y. However, If I called a non-trans woman a man or a non-trans man a woman, that's not a hate crime. So, the whole idea is fairly inconsistent. I still think it's very much up for debate, unlike the instances you listed. I have trans friends, and while I can't speak for them, I don't believe they think the debate is as settled on some of these issues, especially in regard to "misgendering" being a hate crime. Hell, I've misgendered one of my non-binary friends constantly by accident and we're still friends. I'm not banned and haven't been charged with a hate crime. Would I want someone intentionally misgendering them just to get to them? No, I think that's cruel, and I'd defend my friend; but I don't think that person should automatically lose their account or be arrested (which has happened outside the US.) There's an important distinction there and it's an important debate.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ajross 4y ago
> In this instance the "hate crime" is merely saying someone's biological sex is x, even if they say they are y. That's mischaracterizing what was said. Here's the actual article: https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year-is-rachel-levine https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year... This is ridicule, quite clearly. I won't get into the "is it or is it not a hate crime" bit, but this isn't "merely" stating anything. The term "biological sex" doesn't even appear in the article. The point the reader is supposed to take from this article is quite clearly not "mere" information about Rachel Levine's gender and/or "biological sex". It's that Rachel Levine's presented gender was very funny to the authors and that we should laugh at her for it. > Would I want someone intentionally misgendering them just to get to them? No, I think that's cruel Seems like you're putting an awful lot of weight on the distinction between "hate" and "cruel" to me. What about here on HN? Do you think it's OK for users here to be "cruel" to others, or should dang ban them? Because HN bans people for being cruel, probably every day. Why is Twitter different?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ajross 4y ago
  I'm going to reply to my own comment to extend the last point, because I think it's important to point out: I think it's clear, and that everyone would agree, that if you showed up here on HN making fun of another commenter for their gender in exactly the way that the Bee did, using exactly the same words, that you'd be banned. And we'd all agree that you should be banned. I think the logical trap that the "free speech" folks are falling into here is that this doesn't "feel" targetted in the same way. It's a "media organization" making fun of a "public figure" and neither the Bee nor Levine are part of "your community". So Twitter banning them doesn't feel like community enforcement of norms, it feels political. And since the Bee is on "your side" you feel like they must have been wronged. So maybe you should be constructing arguments around whether or not Twitter consitutes a "community" with "norms"? Maybe it doesn't, I'm willing to hear arguments. But the idea that the article wasn't hateful jut doesn't fly as I see it. It was awful, and the only way to see otherwise is to get into a headspace where Levine isn't part of "your community" and thus her feelings don't matter.
  - mquander 4y ago
    I agree with this, but I would emphasize something you glossed over, which is that the target is a "public figure." It's normative to be cruel to "public figures" in ways that would be totally unacceptable in any normal interpersonal relationship. I personally think that's fucked up, but it really is normative. So singling out e.g. cruelty specifically about trans people's gender presentation seems targeted and political, because it's completely commonplace to say cruel things about someone if they made bad art, or if they disagree with you about some political policies, and rarely do people get banned from anything about it.
    - ajross 4y ago
      This is a perspective thing. But I just don't see that. I mean, sure, there are Internet Yahoos everywhere who run around calling people Nazis and whatnot. But do you have any examples of major abuse directed by big accounts with big audiences (i.e. the ones that attract the censors' attention) that should have been banned but weren't? The Bee went way out on a limb with that article as I see it. And they got banned. Certainly other similar accounts (the Onion, say) aren't nearly as hateful.
slg 4y ago
What do you think is the fundamental joke the article is making? The only joke I see is "a trans person exists". The article isn't about her policies, her performance in her job, or even complexities in our evolving definition of either sex or gender like you are implying. The joke is that this person is trans. The message of that joke is the existence of a trans person in public is worthy of mockery. Therefore the only way to stop the mockery is to stop being trans or retreat from public life. I think refusing to stop that mockery until the target does one of those two things qualifies as harassment.
- catiopatio 4y ago
  > What do you think is the fundamental joke the article is making? That a man was voted “Woman of the Year”. By any non-tautological definition of “woman” and “man”, that’s objectively true. Are we not allowed to point out obvious truths when people claim the opposite?
  - jl6 4y ago
    Generally we consider jokes to be cruel when they mock an affliction that someone didn’t choose to have. You can just about get away with making such jokes about the abstract idea of an affliction, but when you name someone directly it crosses a line. Whether you think this particular example was cruel depends ultimately on whether you think it is targeting the individual’s gender dysphoria (the thing they didn’t choose to have), or whether it is targeting their claim to be something they objectively are not. One might argue that there is no difference, if one believes that gender affirmation is the only treatment for gender dysphoria, and that everyone is obliged to participate in that treatment, and to do otherwise amounts to mockery of the unchosen affliction. Personally I think it’s wrong to joke about people with schizophrenia, but equally wrong to tell them the voices in their head are real.
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      I take your point, but would suggest the joke is more pointedly aimed at society generally, and the magazine specifically. What makes the joke funny and culturally relevant — as opposed trivial cruelty — is that it represents a simple, forbidden truth for which one will be subject to severe public censure and deplatforming. Comedy is a final bulwark against uncritical thinking, and can be used to deflate ludicrous ideas that are otherwise culturally unassailable.
49531 4y ago
I think the debate on misgendering being a "hate crime" is a bit pedantic. A lot of normal things between friends, lovers, acquaintances, colleagues pr strangers can be considered criminal or normal depending on circumstances / context. The idea that you're going to be jailed by accidentally misgendering your buddy is just moral panic at the expense of trans folks. If I walked around the office calling my male co-worker by some random female name as a form of ridicule I'd end up on those cheesy videos they make you watch for sexual harassment training.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  When you say something like this to a friend, you're giving them power and control over you because if they decide to make you a criminal, they can. That's not what trust is supposed to mean between friends. If someone stabs a friend they can't claim that since it's between friends, it's ok. This is how you know laws such as what you're discussing are ridiculous. Does it make you an asshole to crack a rude gay joke in front of someone who is gay? yes. Should it be criminal? absolutely not.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ajross 4y ago

> In this instance the "hate crime" is merely saying someone's biological sex is x, even if they say they are y. That's mischaracterizing what was said. Here's the actual article: https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year-is-rachel-levine https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year... This is ridicule, quite clearly. I won't get into the "is it or is it not a hate crime" bit, but this isn't "merely" stating anything. The term "biological sex" doesn't even appear in the article. The point the reader is supposed to take from this article is quite clearly not "mere" information about Rachel Levine's gender and/or "biological sex". It's that Rachel Levine's presented gender was very funny to the authors and that we should laugh at her for it. > Would I want someone intentionally misgendering them just to get to them? No, I think that's cruel Seems like you're putting an awful lot of weight on the distinction between "hate" and "cruel" to me. What about here on HN? Do you think it's OK for users here to be "cruel" to others, or should dang ban them? Because HN bans people for being cruel, probably every day. Why is Twitter different?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ajross 4y ago
I'm going to reply to my own comment to extend the last point, because I think it's important to point out: I think it's clear, and that everyone would agree, that if you showed up here on HN making fun of another commenter for their gender in exactly the way that the Bee did, using exactly the same words, that you'd be banned. And we'd all agree that you should be banned. I think the logical trap that the "free speech" folks are falling into here is that this doesn't "feel" targetted in the same way. It's a "media organization" making fun of a "public figure" and neither the Bee nor Levine are part of "your community". So Twitter banning them doesn't feel like community enforcement of norms, it feels political. And since the Bee is on "your side" you feel like they must have been wronged. So maybe you should be constructing arguments around whether or not Twitter consitutes a "community" with "norms"? Maybe it doesn't, I'm willing to hear arguments. But the idea that the article wasn't hateful jut doesn't fly as I see it. It was awful, and the only way to see otherwise is to get into a headspace where Levine isn't part of "your community" and thus her feelings don't matter.
- mquander 4y ago
  I agree with this, but I would emphasize something you glossed over, which is that the target is a "public figure." It's normative to be cruel to "public figures" in ways that would be totally unacceptable in any normal interpersonal relationship. I personally think that's fucked up, but it really is normative. So singling out e.g. cruelty specifically about trans people's gender presentation seems targeted and political, because it's completely commonplace to say cruel things about someone if they made bad art, or if they disagree with you about some political policies, and rarely do people get banned from anything about it.
  - ajross 4y ago
    This is a perspective thing. But I just don't see that. I mean, sure, there are Internet Yahoos everywhere who run around calling people Nazis and whatnot. But do you have any examples of major abuse directed by big accounts with big audiences (i.e. the ones that attract the censors' attention) that should have been banned but weren't? The Bee went way out on a limb with that article as I see it. And they got banned. Certainly other similar accounts (the Onion, say) aren't nearly as hateful.

slg 4y ago

What do you think is the fundamental joke the article is making? The only joke I see is "a trans person exists". The article isn't about her policies, her performance in her job, or even complexities in our evolving definition of either sex or gender like you are implying. The joke is that this person is trans. The message of that joke is the existence of a trans person in public is worthy of mockery. Therefore the only way to stop the mockery is to stop being trans or retreat from public life. I think refusing to stop that mockery until the target does one of those two things qualifies as harassment.

catiopatio 4y ago
> What do you think is the fundamental joke the article is making? That a man was voted “Woman of the Year”. By any non-tautological definition of “woman” and “man”, that’s objectively true. Are we not allowed to point out obvious truths when people claim the opposite?
- jl6 4y ago
  Generally we consider jokes to be cruel when they mock an affliction that someone didn’t choose to have. You can just about get away with making such jokes about the abstract idea of an affliction, but when you name someone directly it crosses a line. Whether you think this particular example was cruel depends ultimately on whether you think it is targeting the individual’s gender dysphoria (the thing they didn’t choose to have), or whether it is targeting their claim to be something they objectively are not. One might argue that there is no difference, if one believes that gender affirmation is the only treatment for gender dysphoria, and that everyone is obliged to participate in that treatment, and to do otherwise amounts to mockery of the unchosen affliction. Personally I think it’s wrong to joke about people with schizophrenia, but equally wrong to tell them the voices in their head are real.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    I take your point, but would suggest the joke is more pointedly aimed at society generally, and the magazine specifically. What makes the joke funny and culturally relevant — as opposed trivial cruelty — is that it represents a simple, forbidden truth for which one will be subject to severe public censure and deplatforming. Comedy is a final bulwark against uncritical thinking, and can be used to deflate ludicrous ideas that are otherwise culturally unassailable.

49531 4y ago

I think the debate on misgendering being a "hate crime" is a bit pedantic. A lot of normal things between friends, lovers, acquaintances, colleagues pr strangers can be considered criminal or normal depending on circumstances / context. The idea that you're going to be jailed by accidentally misgendering your buddy is just moral panic at the expense of trans folks. If I walked around the office calling my male co-worker by some random female name as a form of ridicule I'd end up on those cheesy videos they make you watch for sexual harassment training.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
When you say something like this to a friend, you're giving them power and control over you because if they decide to make you a criminal, they can. That's not what trust is supposed to mean between friends. If someone stabs a friend they can't claim that since it's between friends, it's ok. This is how you know laws such as what you're discussing are ridiculous. Does it make you an asshole to crack a rude gay joke in front of someone who is gay? yes. Should it be criminal? absolutely not.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]