5 ms·

She's spending millions of dollars funding anti trans political organizations. That's a bit beyond simple speech. Her life sure was ruined by that mob though.

She's spending millions of dollars funding anti trans political organizations. That's a bit beyond simple speech. Her life sure was ruined by that mob though. Such a shame she's poor now and no one is buying her new game. Do you have an example of this: 1.) Actually happening 2.) Happening because of only speech

seiferteric 4y ago
Who is she funding?
idlewords 4y ago
Kathleen Stock is a good example, an academic philosopher run out of a job in 2021 and consistently harassed ever since for her philosophical stance on the relationship between sex and gender. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/sussex-professor-kathleen-stock-resigns-after-transgender-rights-row https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/sussex-profess...
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  The article disagrees with your claim that she was “run out of” a job. It looks like she resigned after student criticism, even though the university still wanted to continue employing her. The outcry definitely has a negative effect on her mental health but I think calling it being “run out of” is a narrative spin on this article. She was publicly criticized and even though her employer fully supported her speech she resigned anyways.
  - idlewords 4y ago
    What do you think being run out of a job means? If a mob shows up at my house with pitchforks, I will leave irrespective of whether my landlord wants to continue renting to me. Read up on what happened to Stock, and what she goes through when trying to speak in public nowadays, and you'll see my description is factual.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
      A mob didn’t show up at her house. My understanding is that students were using their free speech in criticizing her speech while her right to speak was supported by her employer. I don’t see the issue here. The article doesn’t describe credible threats to her person; it’s not like someone put a bomb threat on her classes or something. It just looked like there was some outrage, maybe a protest, or a petition online, which I’m sure is hard to deal with but I don’t agree that it’s accurate to call it being run out of anything.
nicoburns 4y ago
I don't think JK Rowling is anti-trans. She just doesn't think that trans women ought to have the exact same set of rights as cis women. That's not anti-trans any more than thinking men and women ought to have different rights is anti-men.
- abduhl 4y ago
  I don't think this is JK Rowling's position. JK Rowling doesn't think that trans women shouldn't have the exact same set of RIGHTS as cis women, she thinks that trans women shouldn't be able have the same set of societal privileges as cis women. This seems like a thin way to slice a hair, but I think the two ideas are distinct.
- donocin 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    You're really not helping the cause here by defining "woman" in such a way that trans women are unambiguously excluded. There's an important debate to be had here about the nature of gender and the role it ought to have in society. And we can't have that debate if people insist on using language that presumes the answer.
    - donocin 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - dmix 4y ago
      We also can't have a debate about defining women where even daring to ask the question brings about mobs. As much as the absolutist "men can never become women" crowd attempts to shut down these debates there's also the equally harmful groups who say that "anyone who says they are a woman is one and even questioning that makes you a transphobe". It's easier to dismiss the former as intolerant, but the latter is becoming the (only) socially accepted opinion on places like Reddit. Which is insidious for such a contentious topic. I personally don't see how we can solve this cultural issue without there being some very clear grey area in between.
galangalalgol 4y ago
I agree monetary donations are not speech, they are actions. A better example might have been Scott Adams' recent statements. In so far as I haven't heard of him funding anyone. I sympathize with the papers that dropped Dilbert, but it sets a horrible precedent to cease business relationships with people because of their political views (not actions).
- ghaff 4y ago
  It's hardly a precedent. Companies have been shedding relationships with individuals, TV shows, other organizations for a very long time for expressing political and other views that alienate a sufficient percentage of their customer base such that the benefit of the relationship is no longer worth the cost.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    Yeah that is a fair point, nothing new.
ouid 4y ago
Do you really find language like "chest feeding" to be a non-degrading way of talking about women? I can't imagine successfully defending that language to anyone, say 10 years ago. I think you just missed the point where it became insane, instead of progressive, because the line was blurry.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  I want to ask, please read this question in good faith: why is chest feeding insane now, verses other polite terms established decades ago? What difference is it to cease making differentiations between ms/mrs(mz), or to call someone Chinese instead of chinaman, or calling someone African American instead of colored? Yeah it seems new, and therefore unusual/weird, but I don’t know if I can identify a clear and rational rubric as to what makes new progressive terminology insane and older progressive terminology sane. (Also, I don’t personally agree with “chest feeding” since breasts don’t necessarily have anything to do with gender, men can have breasts. But like, if someone else wants to call their own child feeding activity chest feeding, what do I care? Also, I’m not feeding any kids witth mammary glands so I don’t really know if I even get to be an arbiter of sane/insane terminology to refer to those activities.)
  - ouid 4y ago
    I think you will find that hyperfixation on calling people by the "correct term" for their race is also insane, but less insane, which is why I described the line as blurry. The benefit of changing the terms by which we express our fixation on race is that the old terms were largely associated with hateful speech, and the hope is that the new term might be less inflammatory. If you actually feel comfortable using someone's race as an adjective when referring to them, regardless of what form that adjective takes. I would suggest that you consider that more thoughtfully. in the case if removing the word woman from the lexicon, the people who are being appeased have a problem with whether or not they get/have to be identified as women. Not that woman is a hateful word, but that you might exclude someone from the category. This is different. It is true that arbitrary exclusion from categories is occasionally hateful, but it is not the case that people have been using breast feeding as a slur, and trying to retcon that to be so is obviously degrading to women who have not used it vitriolically, and do not consider it hate speech. In good faith, can you really not imagine the difference between telling someone not to use the word chinaman to refer to someone who doesnt want to be called a chinaman, and telling them not to refer to thenselves as a woman, because someone else doesn't want you to?

seiferteric 4y ago

Who is she funding?

idlewords 4y ago

Kathleen Stock is a good example, an academic philosopher run out of a job in 2021 and consistently harassed ever since for her philosophical stance on the relationship between sex and gender. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/sussex-professor-kathleen-stock-resigns-after-transgender-rights-row https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/sussex-profess...

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
The article disagrees with your claim that she was “run out of” a job. It looks like she resigned after student criticism, even though the university still wanted to continue employing her. The outcry definitely has a negative effect on her mental health but I think calling it being “run out of” is a narrative spin on this article. She was publicly criticized and even though her employer fully supported her speech she resigned anyways.
- idlewords 4y ago
  What do you think being run out of a job means? If a mob shows up at my house with pitchforks, I will leave irrespective of whether my landlord wants to continue renting to me. Read up on what happened to Stock, and what she goes through when trying to speak in public nowadays, and you'll see my description is factual.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    A mob didn’t show up at her house. My understanding is that students were using their free speech in criticizing her speech while her right to speak was supported by her employer. I don’t see the issue here. The article doesn’t describe credible threats to her person; it’s not like someone put a bomb threat on her classes or something. It just looked like there was some outrage, maybe a protest, or a petition online, which I’m sure is hard to deal with but I don’t agree that it’s accurate to call it being run out of anything.

nicoburns 4y ago

I don't think JK Rowling is anti-trans. She just doesn't think that trans women ought to have the exact same set of rights as cis women. That's not anti-trans any more than thinking men and women ought to have different rights is anti-men.

abduhl 4y ago
I don't think this is JK Rowling's position. JK Rowling doesn't think that trans women shouldn't have the exact same set of RIGHTS as cis women, she thinks that trans women shouldn't be able have the same set of societal privileges as cis women. This seems like a thin way to slice a hair, but I think the two ideas are distinct.
donocin 4y ago
[flagged]
- nicoburns 4y ago
  You're really not helping the cause here by defining "woman" in such a way that trans women are unambiguously excluded. There's an important debate to be had here about the nature of gender and the role it ought to have in society. And we can't have that debate if people insist on using language that presumes the answer.
  - donocin 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - dmix 4y ago
    We also can't have a debate about defining women where even daring to ask the question brings about mobs. As much as the absolutist "men can never become women" crowd attempts to shut down these debates there's also the equally harmful groups who say that "anyone who says they are a woman is one and even questioning that makes you a transphobe". It's easier to dismiss the former as intolerant, but the latter is becoming the (only) socially accepted opinion on places like Reddit. Which is insidious for such a contentious topic. I personally don't see how we can solve this cultural issue without there being some very clear grey area in between.

galangalalgol 4y ago

I agree monetary donations are not speech, they are actions. A better example might have been Scott Adams' recent statements. In so far as I haven't heard of him funding anyone. I sympathize with the papers that dropped Dilbert, but it sets a horrible precedent to cease business relationships with people because of their political views (not actions).

ghaff 4y ago
It's hardly a precedent. Companies have been shedding relationships with individuals, TV shows, other organizations for a very long time for expressing political and other views that alienate a sufficient percentage of their customer base such that the benefit of the relationship is no longer worth the cost.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  Yeah that is a fair point, nothing new.

ouid 4y ago

Do you really find language like "chest feeding" to be a non-degrading way of talking about women? I can't imagine successfully defending that language to anyone, say 10 years ago. I think you just missed the point where it became insane, instead of progressive, because the line was blurry.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
I want to ask, please read this question in good faith: why is chest feeding insane now, verses other polite terms established decades ago? What difference is it to cease making differentiations between ms/mrs(mz), or to call someone Chinese instead of chinaman, or calling someone African American instead of colored? Yeah it seems new, and therefore unusual/weird, but I don’t know if I can identify a clear and rational rubric as to what makes new progressive terminology insane and older progressive terminology sane. (Also, I don’t personally agree with “chest feeding” since breasts don’t necessarily have anything to do with gender, men can have breasts. But like, if someone else wants to call their own child feeding activity chest feeding, what do I care? Also, I’m not feeding any kids witth mammary glands so I don’t really know if I even get to be an arbiter of sane/insane terminology to refer to those activities.)
- ouid 4y ago
  I think you will find that hyperfixation on calling people by the "correct term" for their race is also insane, but less insane, which is why I described the line as blurry. The benefit of changing the terms by which we express our fixation on race is that the old terms were largely associated with hateful speech, and the hope is that the new term might be less inflammatory. If you actually feel comfortable using someone's race as an adjective when referring to them, regardless of what form that adjective takes. I would suggest that you consider that more thoughtfully. in the case if removing the word woman from the lexicon, the people who are being appeased have a problem with whether or not they get/have to be identified as women. Not that woman is a hateful word, but that you might exclude someone from the category. This is different. It is true that arbitrary exclusion from categories is occasionally hateful, but it is not the case that people have been using breast feeding as a slur, and trying to retcon that to be so is obviously degrading to women who have not used it vitriolically, and do not consider it hate speech. In good faith, can you really not imagine the difference between telling someone not to use the word chinaman to refer to someone who doesnt want to be called a chinaman, and telling them not to refer to thenselves as a woman, because someone else doesn't want you to?