JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over Scottish hate crime law ( www.bbc.com )

JK Rowling has challenged Scotland’s new hate crime law in a series of social media posts - inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.

The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

She said “freedom of speech and belief” was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.

Earlier, Scotland’s first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a “rising tide of hatred”.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.

…

Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.

Blackmist ,

Tbh, it’s a badly thought out “law” that seems to be just a case of letting the police decide whether to act on it or not, letting them deal with things based on their own prejudices (e.g. weed is illegal in the UK, but if you were a racist copper you could arrest some black youths for smoking it and not some white kids). It’s cowardly politics, and avoids actually defining anything or drawing any lines in the sand.

Also, it’s not a crime to be a moron on Twitter. One might argue it’s where they belong.

TechNerdWizard42 ,

Yes. Now if you expand this thought process you’ll find that the majority of laws are exactly this. Pretty much everything you do is both legal and illegal according to different laws. Which means you can be arrested, detained, etc for basically any reason at any time. It’s all down to if “they” (the cop you interact with, the DA, the judge, the high ranking official who just doesn’t like you, the media rallying against you, etc) want something to happen.

It’s a hallmark of fear based authoritarian governments.

Pulptastic ,

… so arrest her?

Jaccident ,

I’m utterly befuddled by this woman; somehow she hates the idea of trans women so much that she’s now closely allied with Posie Parker, a woman who hates women, hates suffrage, has advocated for the removal of women’s rights for years, and shares closely held opinions from just right of Goebbels.

Somehow Jo has become so utterly single-minded, she’s paired with the antithesis of all the other things she believes in (and still claims to believe as justification of her anti-trans nonsense).

VinnyDaCat ,

You know what’s baffling to me?

She was poor at some point. She lived in poverty off of government welfare. Chances are there are a good amount of children who grew up with her works that transitioned later on. They are part of the same fanbase that lifted her from poverty.

How can you genuinely turn out that unsympathetic for your fellow human beings like that?

Duamerthrax ,

I know one trans person who’s a big Harry Potter Adult. They just also happen to be dumb and selfish, just like JK. Being Trans or being Poor doesn’t automatically make someone empathetic.

Wayren ,

Can we just hold one big public figure accountable to the law? Please?

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

No.

Wayren ,

Sigh. Yeah. Thought so. 😭

John_McMurray ,

Chances are they don’t want to try this on someone with money for the good lawyers. Authorities never try the more questionable laws that way.

beefbot ,

To be honest, justice sometimes DOES happen, but I think it tends to happen to B. Cosby & K. Spacey more than H. Weinstein

Miss Not A Straight White Guy here thinks she won’t be made an example, & she probably won’t ever. But she will never be part of the truly protected class.

Not even if she transitioned 🫠

olympicyes ,

You want her to go to jail for her tweet?

blazeknave ,

I have never and will never give her a dime. My kid is banned. We will never stream 1 second or flip 1 page.

yamanii ,
@yamanii@lemmy.world avatar

Some people here really breaking their backs with the freeze peach of haring trans.

iLoveFishing , (edited )

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    saintshenanigans ,

    If you actually read the bill it verbatim says that criticism of a protected class is protected under free speech.

    ipkpjersi ,

    I’m glad that Harry Potter wasn’t my favourite series growing up, knowing how bad of a person she is. With that said, it’s still possible to separate the art from the artist, so it’s okay either way but personally I just feel better knowing it wasn’t my number one favourite series growing up.

    Obi ,
    @Obi@sopuli.xyz avatar

    I personally completely disassociate my harry potter experience from her, I’m not gonna let her ruin my happy childhood memories. But I also don’t go out of my way to spend money that goes to the franchise either, didn’t get the game, don’t buy goodies etc. We might visit the UK park some day if the chance arises just because my wife loves these kinds of parks and I’d rather that than Disney.

    seriousconsideration ,

    the movies are way better than the books anyway and her name is nowhere near the movies.

    Xtallll ,
    @Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    Unfortunately her bank account is, and she uses that money to harm trans people.

    OfficerBribe ,

    Depends who you ask. There isn’t a single HP movie I like more than a book and the only decent movie adaptions in my eyes were first 2.

    saintshenanigans ,

    I think the general argument against separating the art from the artist is that shes still alive and when we buy HP products, she gets that money and uses it to harm trans people.

    Hp lovecraft iirc is known as a racist, but we can still purchase his books without funding him cause he’s dead.

    Buy your HP merch secondhand, i guess?

    Drewelite ,

    🏴‍☠️

    EnderMB ,

    I believe that it’s not as simple as that. I think that derivatives of “Harry Potter” and the characters within result in her giving a hefty cut, but I believe that the “Wizarding World” doesn’t, as it is owned by WB and fully owns the rights.

    saintshenanigans ,

    Oh ill have to look into that some, i didn’t know about that. Maybe i can play the game! Lol

    Valmond ,

    I got them all (english versions) except n 1, free if you get them. Bordeaux France.

    Dkarma ,

    Who knewa serial plagiarist would be a shit person

    ArtVandalist ,

    It’s written in the stars.

    Zehzin ,
    @Zehzin@lemmy.world avatar

    Can you point me at where to learn about this? Not being snarky, I’m out of the loop.

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    en.wikipedia.org/…/Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_…

    There’s a lot of gray area in the whole Young Adult Fantasy Wizard space. Case in point:

    In June 2009, the estate of Adrian Jacobs, a children’s author who died in 1997, sued Rowling’s publishers, Bloomsbury, for £500 million, accusing her of having plagiarised “substantial parts” of his work in writing the novel Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. In a statement, Jacobs’s family claimed that a scene in Goblet of Fire was substantially similar to Jacobs’s book The Adventures of Willy the Wizard: Livid Land.

    Both Willy and Harry are required to work out the exact nature of the main task of the contest which they both achieve in a bathroom assisted by clues from helpers, in order to discover how to rescue human hostages imprisoned by a community of half-human, half-animal fantasy creatures

    Is it possible that Rowling (or one of her ghostwriters) lifted passages from another Wizard Adventure novel with a similar theme of deadly puzzle games? Certainly. Is it possible that there’s simply some overlap in how a couple of authors with relatively limited creativity can compose a cliche of the genre? Also certainly.

    There’s not any material evidence to suggest Rowling straight copypasta’d text from a prior copywritten work. But that would be devilishly hard to come by. As it stands, I’m open to the theory that Rowling’s writing team cut corners by pulling a bunch of low-circulation published works and mining them for ideas. But I have relatively little confidence in their ability to prove any of it.

    RizzRustbolt ,

    Also Gaiman’s Books of Magic was a huge “influence” on her work.

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    Well, sure. But if we’re going to chase after every author who was influenced by Neil Gaiman, we’re burning down half the modern fantasy fiction produced in the last 30 years. If we rope in Anne Rice, I think we’ll get the other half.

    flemtone ,

    Hate is the keyword here, stating something factual is fine but as we all know someone somewhere will misuse this act if they are butthurt enough

    soggy_kitty ,

    All black people are born on earth

    Zehzin ,
    @Zehzin@lemmy.world avatar

    It only takes one pregnant astronaut to change that

    iLoveFishing ,

    It will definitely be abused. Glad we have better laws in the US that prevent a law like this ever being passed.

    undergroundoverground ,

    No, you all have to pretend that corporations are people and that political donations, specifically made to subvert your democracy, is freeze-peach and their aint no limit on freedom, baby!

    Nope, no abuse of the law there…

    Hate, in British law here, would be things said to insight violence against people. The best thing to ask people with views such as yours is “what exactly is it that you want to say, that you’re being stopped from saying?”

    cosmicrookie , (edited )
    @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

    The same law that prohibits hatred towards transgenders transgender people also prohibits it towards age discriination. (“stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability etc).

    Does this mean you can’t call me a boomer any longer?

    bingbong ,

    Ok boomer

    cosmicrookie ,
    @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

    -Hello Police? I want to report a crime!

    crazyCat ,

    euro siren noises

    irreticent ,

    “Your sirens sound like gay guys having a threesome.”

    Kit ,

    FYI, you shouldn’t use the term “transgenders”. Transgender is an adjective, so you would say “transgender people”. Using that word makes you sound similar to a grandpa who refers to his black neighbors as “coloreds”.

    cosmicrookie ,
    @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

    Thank you. I must admit that I don’t always get this right, but this is entirely due to English not being my main language. That said, I did think about using it in the same way as people with disabilities, but thought that sexuality(gender?) is more defining than what disability one may have and would not be perceived negatively. Actually, thinking about it, why is it any different than calling someone a man or a woman? I will note this for the future though, because although it does not necessarily make sense to me, it doesn’t hurt me to use it the way it is prefered. Thank you again.

    Kit ,

    “Man” and “Woman” are nouns. “Transgender” is an adjective. When you refer to a person as an adjective, it dehumanizes and stereotypes them. Here’s some sentences that show how awkward and off-putting it sounds:

    1. “The crippled should be grateful for the accommodations provided.”
    2. “I don’t feel comfortable around the blacks in our neighborhood.”
    3. “Those poors are just lazy and don’t want to work.”
    4. “I heard the gays are organizing a protest downtown.”
    5. “The whites always seem to get preferential treatment.”
    cosmicrookie ,
    @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

    I am only trying to understand this better, so excuse me stepping any toes here, but why is transgender not a noun too? Is this because it describes the type of man or woman one is? I would assume that if used neutrally, it could as well be a noun.

    Kit ,

    It’s an adjective because it describes a characteristic or identity of a person. This Reddit thread explains it better than I can: reddit.com/…/why_are_a_lesbianbisexual_fine_but_a…

    knightly ,
    @knightly@pawb.social avatar

    Men and women are nouns.

    Male and female can be nouns or adjectives depending on usage. It’s demeaning to refer to women as “females”, but calling someone part of your female friend group doesn’t make one sound like a Ferengi because it’s being used as an adjective to describe the friend group.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    because it describes the type of man or woman one is?

    The type of man a transgender man is is a man.

    The type of woman a transgender woman is is a woman.

    Passerby6497 ,

    why is transgender not a noun too? Is this because it describes the type of man or woman one is?

    Yes, because ‘transgender’ is a modifier for nouns, but not one itself.

    To make the descriptions even more awkward to demonstrate the point, you wouldn’t call tall women ‘the talls’ because it’s awkward as fuck and distills the person down to a single physical attribute. ‘The transgenders’ does the same thing.

    Halosheep ,

    This is stupid. People often say things like “the gays” or “the straights” to refer to the group of individuals who identify as such. Drawing the line at “transgenders” feels silly.

    lady_maria ,
    @lady_maria@lemmy.world avatar

    Are you a transgender person? If not, why would that determination be up to you?

    Halosheep ,

    I’m white and cisgendered and yet have no determination whether or not internet communities like “arethestraightsokay” are fine to exist. Am I not allowed a voice?

    lady_maria ,
    @lady_maria@lemmy.world avatar

    You are allowed a voice, yes. Haven’t you just used it?

    Your right to use your voice doesn’t protect you from potential criticism from those who hear it. You do not have the authority dictate what is acceptable/unacceptable regarding trans issues as a cis person (nor what we should call trans people), just as I—another white cis person—have no right to claim what is or isn’t okay when it comes to issues unique to POC.

    I don’t have the background and life experience of non-white/trans people, so I’ll continue to follow and amplify the words of those in any marginalized group that I am not a part of. There are enough people ignoring and talking over them already.

    Halosheep ,

    Well, you can continue being overly self righteous to your heart’s content While you write way too damn much on the subject, another lemmy post comes by and shock someone references the gays on a 196 post in a non offensive manner.

    Get over yourself lol

    Ashe ,

    It’s literally slur reclamation. The same way you’ll find the f slur in queer spaces sometimes but not others. Referring to trans people as “transgenders” or even just referring to someone as “a trans” is actively used in an extremely hateful way frequently. If you’re cis, it might be a good idea to just accept that people don’t like to be referred to that way.

    Just an idea.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Was I supposed to start calling you a boomer at some point?

    Dkarma ,

    Right after they labeled themselves as boomers

    Etterra ,

    Please do. She may see herself as some kind of martyr, but everyone else just sees her as an idiot.

    cosmicrookie ,
    @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

    I may not have the whole facts and information, but to me, it is beginning to sound more like a witch-hunt. Just let her have her opinions and move forward

    Syndic ,

    How’s telling her that she has shitty opinion a witch hunt, but her using her fame and wealth to spread her shitty opinion way beyond what a normal random person could ever do, isn’t?

    cosmicrookie ,
    @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

    As mentioned, I do not have all the details. I have heard some of her ideas, but I don’t follow her that closely. Many famous people have terrible ideas and many fans to spread their ideas to. To me it mostly looks like people being hurt even more by JK, because they like the universe that she has created but her ideology does not fit their own.

    It’s fair to feel like this, but she is just one person sharing her ideas. Nobody goes like: “JK is against trans people, so I am too”. At least they shouldn’t and at least we should expect most people don’t. Just let her have her opinions and leave it at that

    nac82 ,

    You say ypu don’t have all the details to rid yourself of being responsible for the hate you are defending, because you’re an idiot.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    “I don’t know the details, but this person is being falsely accused” is not a very rational position, so I hope you didn’t think it was.

    laughterlaughter ,

    Nobody goes like: “JK is against trans people, so I am too”.

    Oh sweet summer child.

    Syndic ,

    As mentioned, I do not have all the details. I have heard some of her ideas, but I don’t follow her that closely.

    Well then maybe, you should look a bit deeper in the topic before you propose that she’s the victim of a witch hunt? I mean it’s really not that hard, all the controversial shit is right there on her own twitter and can easily be found.

    It’s fair to feel like this, but she is just one person sharing her ideas. Nobody goes like: “JK is against trans people, so I am too”. At least they shouldn’t and at least we should expect most people don’t. Just let her have her opinions and leave it at that

    What? Of course people are constantly influenced by other people’s opinions. That’s how opinions form in the first place. And a world famous author with tons of followers on top of a shit ton of money to throw at groups actively advocating for legal restrictions on transsexual people obviously has a lot more power to influence people’s opinions and shitty laws than you or me in that regard. So no, she’s not just a person sharing her ideas, she’s an incredible influencual one sharing her hate in a time when the transsexual community is under active attack in several modern countries not only resulting in hurt feelings but actual people ending up dead!

    nac82 ,

    If you don’t have all the facts, then it’s best to shut up and move forward.

    Learn to take your own advice before telling others to do it.

    cosmicrookie ,
    @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

    I guess I’m going to let you have your own opinion about that as well, and just move forward…

    nac82 ,

    Good for you.

    Go defend radical hate to somebody who cares what uninformed idiots have to say.

    iLoveFishing ,

    It is just a modern day witch hunt. If you posted this anywhere else but Lemmy this would be the popular opinion.

    gapbetweenus ,

    Her opinion on trans folks is shit, but people should not go to jail for shit opinions. Broken clock and stuff.

    cro_magnon_gilf ,

    That’s starting to be an unusual stance

    TheRealKuni ,

    What she’s saying here probably doesn’t rise to the level of criminality under their law. She’s just doing performative nonsense while proving yet again that she doesn’t understand the difference between sex and gender.

    TheEntity ,

    People shouldn’t go to jail for shit opinions, I agree. That changes when their opinions become more than opinions.

    Reddfugee42 ,

    Is there a crime for nebulous comments?

    steeznson ,

    lol well at least I thought it was a good joke

    gapbetweenus ,

    That’s cryptic.

    Ashe , (edited )

    Trans people have literally been murdered as a direct, traceable result of her “free speech”. Several more people have been victims of harassment campaigns. She has actively engaged in Holocaust denial.

    It’s only cryptic because it’s something that requires nuance, and to be addressed on a case by case basis. It’s safe to say that we have crossed the line and then some

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    And she won’t. This is the same performative bullshit Jordan Peterson pulled in Canada.

    BreakDecks ,

    Hateful ideas can be dangerous things. This is why insulting people in Germany can turn into a criminal offense. They know where that goes if left unchecked.

    Also, remember, not every country is the USA where breaking the law = going to jail. It can just be a fine the first few times and jail only when you show no intent on ceasing what you’re doing.

    JKR is being hyperbolic with this “arrest me” thing. She’s playing the victim for her TERF followers.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Also, remember, not every country is the USA where breaking the law = going to jail.

    If you’re poor and black, sure.

    Notice how many times Trump has flagrantly broken the law.

    gapbetweenus ,

    I’m from Germany, the only way insulting someone is going to be a criminal case is if you insult police. Otherwise it gets almost always dropped.

    So you want the government to decide which ideas are ok and which should be banned? How could this ever go wrong.

    porous_grey_matter ,

    The government deciding what ideas should be banned is pretty typical in Germany lol

    gapbetweenus ,

    What could ever go wrong? Germany, there was something…

    porous_grey_matter ,

    Ok, so which is it? I’m arguing it’s fine to ban ideas if they’re bad enough, like holocaust denial in Germany.

    gapbetweenus ,

    And I’m arguing that it’s a bad idea. Germany is a good example, banning holocaust denial did not stop AFD from raising and getting political power. We were not even able to forbid the damn NDP.

    porous_grey_matter ,

    That’s not a great argument, there is no evidence those things are somehow connected or not. For all you know it would have been straight back to fascism 60 years earlier if it wasn’t banned. The reason AfD has power is that the courts and government support them and let them get away with crime. If the law was actually applied it would have banned that party.

    gapbetweenus ,

    So it’s about how a law is applied. And you still don’t see the potential danger of a law regulating speech? Guess we won’t agree on this one.

    I don’t really see a benefit in people being forced to phrase their hateful opinions in a way to circumvent laws. In the end, Rowling won’t stop spreading her bigoted hateful bullshit - in best case she will just phrase it a bit different, which actually might get some stupid moderates on her side.

    BreakDecks ,

    in best case she will just phrase it a bit different, which actually might get some stupid moderates on her side.

    Look in the mirror. She is framing this issue in a hyperbolic way and you’re siding with her.

    gapbetweenus ,

    Dude, I’m not siding with her on any issue besides freedom of speech - which just happen to be my opinion.

    MacNCheezus ,
    @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today avatar

    I’m pretty sure denying the holocaust can also get you jail time in Germany.

    UnrepententProcrastinator ,

    It’s more complicated than that. Like saying there is a fire in a theatre when there is none, saying transgender are undercover perverts and a danger to society when it’s not supported by evidence will get people killed. Freedom of speech is great and all but when your lie and put people in danger there should be consequences.

    saintshenanigans ,

    And just for the record, this is not a theory. People HAVE been murdered.

    gapbetweenus ,

    Sick people are inspired to violence by all kind of thing, are we going to outlaw Catcher in the Rye?

    rickyrigatoni ,
    @rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee avatar

    We should because it’s a shit book.

    gapbetweenus ,

    I see, since you are for outlawing books it all falls into places.

    SqueakyBeaver ,
    @SqueakyBeaver@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    omg you’re reaching so hard over this entire comment section. just stop, it’s quite frankly embarrassing

    gapbetweenus ,

    Oh no I’m embarrassing myself in the internet, how will I ever live that one down.

    iLoveFishing ,

    You are the only voice of reason in this thread. Free speech is important and laws like this will be abused and used to punish political opponents.

    saintshenanigans ,

    Its not abuse when the political opponent is a bigot using hate and violence to build a platform. For the millionth time, you are free to run out there, make an ass of yourself, and use all the slurs you want.

    What you are NOT free to do, and what this entire conversation is about, is organizing and inciting people to commit a hate crime.

    Its pretty interesting that these things were fine when we’re talking about the civil rights movement, but as soon as there’s a trans or gay person around, your rights are under attack for trying to kill somebody.

    iLoveFishing , (edited )

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    saintshenanigans ,

    How does this prove your point when we established like 30 seconds ago that we are not after douche bag bigots who just use slurs?

    iLoveFishing , (edited )

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    saintshenanigans ,

    Have you actually read the law? Because i’m getting the feeling this is all talk straight from your ass. The entire bill is mostly a consolidation of existing hate crime laws with sex and gender added to the protected classes. Section 4 is probably the one most of you read about on twitter and are basing your entire argument on, it defines that you’re not allowed to say things considered harassment or to incite hatred. You cannot just pester one person for just being gay. YOU can’t just post about how bad you think gay people are and ask others to agree, because you’re inspiring new people to harass others.

    Section 9 goes on to expand on this, and very explicitly states that freedom of expression takes precedence and you cannot simply be arrested for criticizing a protected class. Meaning, you saying “i don’t agree with transgender people, a man should be called a man” is acceptable. You cannot say “transgender people don’t deserve rights” because you are harassing them directly.

    The rest of the bill is mostly defining what classes are, and indicates that a lot of the provisions are meant to be used with other laws, it says “offense” a lot, which seems to be getting interpreted as “i am offended” when they’re actually defining it as a crime that has been committed. They specify an example that the bill does not apply if you simply assault a police officer, but if you shout something at him about his religion or asexual identity, the bill applies as this is a hate crime.

    Here’s a link to a document that lays the bill out in layman’s terms:

    www.legislation.gov.uk/…/aspen_20210014_en.pdf

    So again, please explain your issue with the bill? You’re upset you can’t go out and harass gay people all day?

    gapbetweenus ,

    Glad that someone else actually read the law.

    You cannot say “transgender people don’t deserve rights” because you are harassing them directly.

    That exactly what I personally think is problematic, because I would fundamentally disagree that this is “directly” - but you are right that this is exactly that will be an offence under that law. The same goes for possession of inflammatory material (Part 3, Section 5, 47). Especially with digital media that seems rather murky.

    Again I find Rowling opinion on trans people rather disgusting and genuinely damaging. But the law seems to me rather excessive. But maybe I’m missing something.

    saintshenanigans ,

    That exactly what I personally think is problematic, because I would fundamentally disagree that this is “directly”

    I find Rowling opinion on trans people rather disgusting and genuinely damaging. But the law seems to me rather excessive. But maybe I’m missing something.

    I think it makes a lot more sense if you look at this bill while thinking about communities and interactions in modern times - ANYBODY can have a twitter, youtube, tiktok, etc account and immediately have access to a platform where they can potentially speak to thousands of people, and some of them are pretty impressionable (thinking andrew tate) - so as a community leader you should have some awareness that people are going to act on your ideas because they look up to you. I think this bill is trying to limit cases like that, and also cases of bullying where people have been harassed to the point of suicide simply for their identity

    gapbetweenus ,

    ANYBODY can have a twitter, youtube, tiktok, etc account and immediately have access to a platform where they can potentially speak to thousands of people,

    That is a bit trivializing. Not everybody is able to build a following, you need to bring something to the table for people to watch you. Given it can be just being somehow entertaining like tate. But it’s not like every bigot gets automatically Rowling’s reach, she had to write a rather popular children book for it.

    and some of them are pretty impressionable

    That is the core question to what degree is someone responsible for actions others created by their words. There are obvious clear cases but I think the law gets rather unclear with “or where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.” (Part 2, Section 3. 32). That’s rather broad and unclear in my opinion.

    saintshenanigans ,

    Yeah there’s a lot of ambiguity in the law, they try to define it but they use “what a reasonable person would believe” a bunch, which leaves a LOT of room for interpretation. If a bigot is in power, none of it is unreasonable to him.

    I’m not sure how i would fix it though, theyre trying to address a serious flaw in the modern world, Because intentional or not some of these personalities inspire actions that get people hurt or killed… its a bit of a double edged sword

    gapbetweenus ,

    Governments have a bad track record (in my opinion) when it comes to vaguely defined laws.

    I would absolutely agree that we have a gigantic problem with modern forms of mass communication. For me it’s beyond just bigots spewing hate but also foreign governments influencing people. For example in Germany a lot of far right AFD talking points has obvious roots in russian media propaganda. And I will not pretend that I have any kind of answer but I feel like it has to go deeper than trying to regulate specific cases of speech.

    saintshenanigans ,

    There is a very incredibly stark contrast between telling a story on a page and actually saying “we should hurt people”

    gapbetweenus ,

    Kind of depends? There are books around that are rather direct in their hurtful message.

    saintshenanigans ,

    Yeah there are, but you’ll never be able to stop people from spreading literature, legal or not, so things like catcher and the rye, mice and men, mockingbird, with all of their controversies are great to have in schools to help our children grow into adults who can identify this stuff for what it actually is and not some deranged gospel.

    But then there’s also a ton of other arguments to be made about mental health and all that, when it comes to violent psychos we shouldn’t get in the habit of settling with a scapegoat

    gapbetweenus ,

    Maybe you are misunderstanding me, I’m not arguing for censorship of books but against censorship op speech.

    saintshenanigans ,

    You originally asked if we were going to suggest banning CATR, my point is mostly these books are great examples to help people identify this language and why it should not be used. If you went into a crowded theater and started shouting there’s a shooter, you’d be arrested for inciting panic. Its not censorship when the point is stopping speech from causing physical harm. Same way your right to travel isn’t infringed by requiring a license to drive

    gapbetweenus ,

    My right to travel is not infringed because I can walk.

    Hateful people will be inspired by books and by speech to be hateful and to hurt others. Not sure why you draw the line at books, since also speech can be used as a lesson.

    I would also there is fundamental differences between causing an immediate panick and voicing a hateful opinion. The later was times and times misused to silence governmental criticis. Sure - this time it might turn out different, since good guys are in power, but I highly doubt it.

    gapbetweenus ,

    So who is deciding what opinions are puting people in danger. US government for example thinks that whistleblowers Manning and journalist like Assange are puting people in danger.

    Demdaru ,

    Okay, it’s nth time I see the undercover pervs/rapists about trans folk. The hell happened?

    Zehzin ,
    @Zehzin@lemmy.world avatar

    Have as many opinions as you want, but if you spread shit like “we should exterminate the lesser races” and “trans people are rapists” you earn a vacation at the greybar hotel for abusing your right of free speech to infringe on other people’s rights.

    gapbetweenus ,

    The question is where the line is drawn and how to make sure the state is not abusing those powers to suppress opinions that it sees dangerous. A good example are cases when protecting the children is used as argument for more surveillance. This seems foelr me to go along the same lines.

    Red_October ,

    Sometimes the question of “Where do we draw the line” is an important, valid question that must be considered. Sometimes, the answer to that question can also be “I don’t know precisely, but this is damn well over it.”

    I’m not saying that hack writer is necessarily to that stage, but we absolutely should not allow “But where do you draw the line” to turn into “Everything is permitted because what about splitting hairs.”

    gapbetweenus ,

    Than I will rephrase the question. Who should draw the line and do you trust people in power to draw it in a fair way? What if conservatives are holding that power against opinions they think are dangerous?

    FanciestPants ,

    I’m not totally familiar with how the Scottish legal system works, but wouldn’t the line be drawn by a jury of peers, and not necessarily the people in power?

    gapbetweenus ,

    Good question. But than again - not sure you want to be judged on sensitive topic by a group of peers, I’m not a huge fan of that concept to be honest.

    Zehzin , (edited )
    @Zehzin@lemmy.world avatar

    he question is where the line is drawn

    [Calling for the extermination of people based on race/ethnicity/religion/gender/disability]

    [Discrimination based on race/ethnicity/religion/gender/disability]

    |||||||||| THE LINE ||||||||||

    .

    .

    [Literally 1984]

    Most sane countries don’t have a lot trouble with this.

    gapbetweenus ,

    Calling for extermination, I would agree on. Since it’s more than an opinion it’s a call to action.

    Most sane countries don’t have a lot trouble with this.

    I’m really curious for examples.

    MadBigote ,

    You can weaponize an opinion, that is what is getting punished.

    gapbetweenus ,

    Where you draw the line? And who is drawing it? Will you be equally happy when conservatives will use the same tools against opinions they see as dangerous?

    MadBigote ,

    Who draws it? The government?!

    gapbetweenus ,

    What could go wrong? Assange and Manning would like a word with you.

    seriousconsideration ,

    Bad faith framing of the issue. OPSEC in critical national security operations is a little different than respecting people’s gender identity. Not even in the same ballpark, it aint even the same sport.

    gapbetweenus ,

    Maybe bad faith interpretation of my argument on your side.

    seriousconsideration ,

    Or, maybe I got it right when I assumed that you were comparing Assange and Manning leaking information critical to military operations to Trans people not being the target of hate speech?

    gapbetweenus ,

    Or maybe you got it wrong and that’s not the point I was making?

    The reasoning used in Assange and Manning case, is that information they made publicly available is endangering peoples lives. That is not unsimilar to the argumentation that hateful speech is endangering people targeted by it.

    Zorsith , (edited )
    @Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    I think the line is being drawn at “don’t sympathize with terrorist groups an opressive theocratic government” (publicly stating “at least the taliban know what a woman is”) and “don’t directly fund hate groups”.

    (Edited, see comment below)

    gapbetweenus ,

    Terrorist for ones are maybe freedom fighters for others - kind of sketchy line over there.

    Zehzin ,
    @Zehzin@lemmy.world avatar

    When you woke up today did you decide you were gonna make excuses for the Taliban right there and then or did it kinda just happen? Holy shit.

    gapbetweenus ,

    Taliban are obviously the only terrorist group on the planet and rebels were never before labeled as terrorists.

    seriousconsideration ,

    They’re not rebels. They literally are the government of Afghanistan.

    gapbetweenus ,

    Do you ever try to understand what the other person is saying? Why bother otherwise?

    Zehzin ,
    @Zehzin@lemmy.world avatar

    Which other terrorist group did that TERF sympathize with?

    gapbetweenus ,

    How should I know? I personally don’t follow those crazy people.

    seriousconsideration ,

    Whose freedom does the Taliban fight for? Because the people in the country of Afghanistan don’t feel very free.

    gapbetweenus ,

    They were fighting against first Sowjet and than US-American occupation.

    Zorsith ,
    @Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    Technically correct, the best kind of correct! (they are technically the legit government of Afghanistan despite being a proxy warzone for the US and USSR(?) as I understand it)

    iLoveFishing ,

    That’s not sympathizing with terrorist groups.

    seriousconsideration ,

    Using the Taliban as your source for moral authority is 100% aligning yourself with a terrorist group. Perhaps “sympathizing” isn’t the most accurate word, but are we here to be insufferable pedants or understand the issue?

    iLoveFishing , (edited )

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    seriousconsideration ,

    Can you think of one valid reason why anyone would cite a terrorist organization as a moral authority in anything? Replace the word “Taliban” with “Nazis” and see how it sounds.

    seriousconsideration ,

    The line was drawn by Western governments that all agreed gender identity is a protected group of people. Stop trying to pick apart policies that protect people at the cost of bigots’ freeze peach. Free speech is the ability to criticize your government without going to jail for it. It is not meant to protect your right to trash minorities.

    gapbetweenus ,

    Free speech is the ability to criticize your government without going to jail for it. It is not meant to protect your right to trash minorities.

    And my point, governments have a history of using such laws in the end to get rid of critics. Sure this time it will be completely different. I would love to share your optimism, but you will have to allow me to remain skeptical.

    seriousconsideration ,

    Interesting that no one makes this point outside of the trans debate over whether or not they deserve equal rights against hate rhetoric.

    gapbetweenus ,

    I make that point in general, that I don’t trust governments with regulating speech. By the way I’m all in for private platforms regulating speech, would not hang around here otherwise.

    undergroundoverground ,

    Please spare the rest of the world with your preaching about the abuse of freezepeach laws. America’s is so much more abused than any other western country, its a joke.

    gapbetweenus ,

    What do I have to do with USA? USA would be a rather good example why government should not have the power to censor speech.

    undergroundoverground ,

    Its usually only Americans who are that totalitarian in their presence of protecting freezepeach, thinking we don’t all know what they really want to protect.

    What speech exactly is it that would be stopped from saying here, that you feel a need to say?

    UnrepententProcrastinator ,

    There is no slippery slope if the law protects the weak from the strong.

    gapbetweenus ,

    And I don’t trust governments with defining and enforcing those lines, when it comes to speech.

    UnrepententProcrastinator ,

    So you would let people yell Fire in a theatre?

    gapbetweenus ,

    I don’t think it’s a case of a law protecting weak from the strong. Since that was what I replied to.

    But it’s a fair question where I draw the line. It’s somewhere with direct and indirect consequences, which is hard to define. I absolutely agree that her speech might have very tangible real consequences to real people from a group she is targeting. But than again it’s due to actions of other people “inspired” by her words. While when shouting fire, you create panic just with your own words. Than again one can definitely incite violent actions through media. But that it is even more complicated since it becomes about intent and interpretation.

    UnrepententProcrastinator ,

    So you do think governments should enforce speech laws. I just want you to stop using this as an argument by itself.

    If you look a bit on the history of fascism, they often attack liberal systems as oppressive because of laws that muzzles the hateful. Once in power, their first move is to muzzle the opposition.

    Don’t be duped by their tactics, the oppressed few can barely get equal rights and the hate army is marching to take that away swaying the weak-minded with a narrative of free speech.

    There is plenty of discussion to have about “the line” but we need to move away from free speech absolutists like Musk that once they get power they use it for censorship.

    gapbetweenus ,

    So you do think governments should enforce speech laws.

    I think it’s a more complex question that people make it out to be. I would say any speech regulation by the government is something we should be wary about.

    If you look a bit on the history of fascism, they often attack liberal systems as oppressive because of laws that muzzles the hateful. Once in power, their first move is to muzzle the opposition.

    I don’t get your argument here.

    Don’t be duped by their tactics, the oppressed few can barely get equal rights and the hate army is marching to take that away swaying the weak-minded with a narrative of free speech.

    Sure, when people who disagree with you are weak minded, it’s easy to be always right.

    CileTheSane ,
    @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

    Slippery slope fallacy “You’re okay with the government saying certain ingredients can’t go in food? Where does that stop? Will you be equally happy when a government you disagree with uses the same tools to dictate everything that goes in your food?”

    “You’re okay with the government saying certain areas are off limits to the general public? Where do you draw the line? Will you be equally happy when a different government uses the same tools to forbid you from leaving your home?”

    Is this specific step reasonable? Then it’s okay. When they try to take an unreasonable step then it is appropriate to do something about it.

    gapbetweenus ,

    My argument is more, that while I trust at least some governments with deciding on what food is safe, I don’t trust governments at all with decisions about what speech is permitted.

    CileTheSane ,
    @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

    I don’t trust governments at all with decisions about what speech is permitted.

    Hate crime laws already exist. In Germany it’s illegal to deny to Holocaust. These are good laws. The creation and acceptance of good laws does not necessitate the creation and acceptance of bad laws.

    seriousconsideration ,

    What does the broken clock analogy have to do with Joanne being a bigot?

    gapbetweenus ,

    I disagree with her on pretty much everything, except on the freedom of speech part - even for speech I might personally find disgusting.

    chiliedogg ,

    Lots of people just don’t know what freedom is speech actually means. Speech isn’t a crime, but crimes can be committed by speaking.

    If you kill someone with a hammer, you aren’t charged with possession of hammer - you’re charged with murder. If you hire a hitman to do the killing instead, you aren’t charged with “using speech.”

    When that theoretical person is arrested for “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” they aren’t actually being arrested for their speech or their words, but for a separate crime that uses speech as a mechanism.

    Speech is a marvelous thing that should be protected, but freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of using speech to commit other crimes.

    Zehzin ,
    @Zehzin@lemmy.world avatar

    I, for one, get angry at big gubment limiting my free spech to call people slurs at home depot just like how I get angry at big government for limiting my god given right to come and go as I please when I break into people’s houses and watch them sleep.

    gapbetweenus ,

    Agreed. It just becomes problematic when speech itself is redefined as crime, that is what I’m arguing against. And the the line with the consequences is not that clear either. Someone could read a book and go an kill someone. I personally think it’s a hard thing to really understand consequences of words.

    zerog_bandit , (edited )

    Can you explain to me then, what exactly is freedom of speech? Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn’t using speech then, it’s assault on other persons by threatening harm. Criticize the government? That’s not freedom of speech, that’s just unlicensed protest. Sing a song protesting a war? You go to jail for treason.

    Freedom of speech absolutely means being free from the government imposing consequences for speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater comes from Schenck v United States which found that speech must pose a clear and present danger to be able to be held criminally liable for it. And Brandenburg v Ohio narrowed the definition even further, that speech must be “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.

    Despite our views on JK’s abhorrent rhetoric, you cannot say that mis-gendering trans people is inciting imminent lawlessness.

    Your comment demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of free speech.

    chiliedogg ,

    You quoted cases that literally demonstrate my point.

    It’s not the word “fire” that is the crime. It’s speech as a mechanism by which lawlessness or panic is incited.

    Hate-speech is more nuanced, but can follow a similar pattern.

    Take the sentance: “It’s time to cut down the tall trees.” The words themselves are fairly innocuous. But that was the trigger phrase for the Rwandan Genocide. Saying those words on the air was a call to murder all the Tutsi people. Speaking those words on the radio was not an act of free expression by the Interhamwe, but the start of a barbaric hate crime that killed nearly a million people.

    MacNCheezus ,
    @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today avatar

    Well, ironically your example here demonstrates just how difficult policing or regulating speech can be, and how it will likely never, ever work.

    How, exactly, would you write a law that captures “it’s time to cut down the tall trees” as an act of hate speech (or a crime in general) while not simultaneously massively infringing on any potential innocent uses of such a phrase?

    If you’ve spent any time on social media, you’ll likely have noticed that if admins simply ban certain words or phrases, the people who want to communicate these words will simply come up with some code using words so innocuous that you cannot ban them without frustrating everyone else and thus tipping them off to the conspiracy, and basically giving it even more exposure thanks to the Streisand effect.

    zerog_bandit ,

    It absolutely is the word fire that is the crime and you really need to go back to middle school and take some sort of US legal class. The state of American education system these days…

    chiliedogg ,

    No. It isn’t. There’s nothing illegal about the word fire, or even saying it in a theater.

    Go. Find that law and report back if I’m wrong. Give me a citation.

    You know what - fuck it. I’ll do the leg work here and go into the most specific law I can find on the subject. It’s within the Municipal Code of Ordinances Ordinances of the city of Reading, Ohio.

    It sounds promising for you at first because it specifically mentions:

    Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that the report or warning is false.

    But that line §648.07(A)(1) only applies as a subsection of §648.07(A), which is:

    (A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:

    (1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that the report or warning is false.

    (2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence.

    (3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.

    And to further clarify that the crime isn’t the words, §648.07© specifically states:

    Whoever violates this section is guilty of inducing panic.

    Subsection B is about allowing fire drills as an exception.

    So, according to the most-specific law I could find, the crime is inciting panic, not any specific word or phrase. And even if you did shout fire it isn’t a crime unless it actually causes a real panic.

    Also - I highly doubt you’ve taken more law classes than me. Just a hunch though: maybe you’re just a bad lawyer.

    escaped_cruzader ,

    Speech is a marvelous thing that should be protected, but freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of using speech to commit other crimes.

    This is peak Reddit, now peak lemmy

    If speech has a price, it’s not free

    chiliedogg ,

    Speech used to commit a crime isn’t illegal. The crime being facilitated through that speech is.

    If I assault you with a hammer, it’s not the hammer that’s the issue. Arresting me for it has nothing to do with the legality of hammers.

    buddascrayon ,

    She grossly misinterprets what the law is meant to achieve. It’s not for somebody who dead names a trans person or calls a trans woman he or him. It’s when someone Tweets out “Who will rid me of this troublesome trans person?” and then their one or more of their followers goes out and beats or murders that person.

    saintshenanigans , (edited )

    I swear every single person arguing against this bill hasn’t read it.

    The gist of it is consolidating existing hate crime laws, adding sexual orientation and gender to the protected classes, repealing the law of blasphemy, and then the main one people are on about, outlawing “inciting hate” and spending several entire pages defining exactly what that means and how its still covered by freedom of expression.

    As you said, you can use the slurs. You can be a shit person.

    What this seems to be addressing is the fact that ANYBODY can have a platform nowadays and some of those people use their platform to harm other people, whether indirectly or not.

    gapbetweenus ,

    You should maybe read the law.

    Part 2 Section 3, 32: […] It provides that it is an offence for a person to behave in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner, or communicate threatening, abusive or insulting material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.

    It’s talking about likely consequence not after a crime has been committed. Also:

    Part 2 Section 5, 47: Section 5(1) creates an offence of possession of racially inflammatory material. It provides that it is an offence for a person to have in their possession threatening, abusive or insulting material with a view to communicating the material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is likely that, if the material were communicated, hatred will be stirred up against such a group.

    Which makes possession of inflammatory material an offence. Which is rather murky on it’s own, but even more so in digital age.

    Later it quite literally defines on which terms it’s permissive to discuss sexual orientation or religion.

    To be fair, maybe I missed something so feel free to correct me:

    parliament.scot/…/explanatory-notes-hate-crime-an…

    buddascrayon ,

    I was using hyperbole but the intention is the same. If you use a public platform to intentionally cause harm to another person by way of their race, nationality, sexual identity, or other specificity then you have committed a crime.

    What you clearly missed was the point of the law. Hate speech isn’t about saying what you want about another person, it’s about using your speech to directly or indirectly harm another person or group of people.

    gapbetweenus ,

    I was using hyperbole but the intention is the same.

    Sorry I’m bad at reading facial expression over the internet. My mistake.

    What you clearly missed was the point of the law.

    I literally quoted the law: “where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.”

    That goes beyond what you claim. While even a possession of such speech would be an offence.

    schnurrito ,

    I used to not really like JKR for reasons like these: stallman.org/harry-potter.html

    I am not completely sure where I stand on her substantive opinions in relation to trans issues. I think it’s a debate where both sides make some good points.

    But she is definitely right about the decline of free speech.

    Piatro ,

    In the nicest possible way, what do you mean by “both sides” in this context? One side says that trans people either don’t or shouldn’t exist and the other side says they should exist. I know that may sound extreme or combative but that’s fundamentally “the debate” so I genuinely want to understand how you reached this “both sides have merit” stance that some people close to me also take but I’ve never understood.

    schnurrito ,

    I don’t think this is an accurate description of the debate.

    My understanding of the “TERF” position is that they say that if it is excessively easy to declare oneself as trans, this can be misused by men wanting to get access to spaces reserved for women. Whether one agrees with that point or not, I do not think it is completely illegitimate.

    I usually don’t say anything about this topic at all on the Internet and I am right now reminded of why. I am already starting to regret stating even my relative neutrality on it.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I do not think it is completely illegitimate.

    Apart from there being virtually no examples.

    Unless you take the bigots at their word when they make that claim about someone, obviously.

    cosmicrookie ,
    @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

    you can have my neutrality upvote for all its worth

    Piatro ,

    Without the context of your understanding of the debate as you’ve outlined here we can only guess what you meant by “the debate” in your previous comment so thanks for taking the time to describe it. I absolutely agree that there needs be great care around the legitimacy of when someone declaring their gender should be taken seriously or not in some limited and extreme circumstances (prisons spring to mind). I think your characterisation of the terf argument if you speak to normal people is about accurate from my limited experience. The media and some outspoken terfs like JK are on the more extreme side of that where they say that it is already “too easy” to legitimately change their gender. Which is where I fundamentally disagree with them since I know the hoops some of my friends have had to jump through to even get the smallest amount of help from health providers.

    (I’m using “legitimate” above as a sort of catch all for legal or what the person genuinely feels. I don’t think legal and legitimate are the same thing in this context, hence the distinction.)

    Kit ,

    None of JK’s posts on the subject has suggested that she is only concerned with how easy it is to declare oneself trans. She has openly posted numerous times about how all tranwomen are predators who are just trying to gain access to changing rooms and bathrooms to prey on women and children. I don’t see how there’s any validity in that debate.

    AnalogyAddict ,

    The only merit that I can see is that some people feel that gender should be nothing more than a description of biological or, at least, physiological sex.

    It confuses me to no end that my very girly oldest child identifies male, especially since hearing them talk about it, it seems more a rejection of being seen as a sexual object than any desire to be a man.

    If my kid wants to identify male while being born a girl and being super into makeup, dresses, and sparkle, and that helps them deal with their sexual abuse, more power to them. Even if it breaks my old person brain a little.

    Nothing excuses hating someone or being angry because they disagree with you about the definition of gender. I mean, if a woman assaults another female person, the punishment should be the same, right? It’s not like men can’t go into women’s bathrooms anyways if their mind is set on it.

    Piatro ,

    Yeah then you start debating the merits of hate crime as a concept and I am not even slightly equipped to deal with that!

    I had similar queries around “biological sex” vs gender a while ago and my understanding now is that biological sex is surprisingly hard to define. You can’t go by genitalia because sometimes a person creates the “wrong” ones. You can’t go by chromosomes because again, sometimes they’re different. And you can’t go by other physical traits (Adams apple for example) because again sometimes it’s there, sometimes it’s not, completely unrelated to sex. You can sort of go by hormones but not really (just look at professional sport) so it’s all a bit of a mess. It’s way easier for me to just accept there’s a spectrum and move on, because to me it’s way harder to actually define where the line is than to just dismiss the line entirely.

    AnalogyAddict , (edited )

    Exceptions don’t disprove the rule. I specialized in genetics twenty plus years ago, so most of the stuff people are finding out via the internet is something I’ve known for a long time.

    Of course there’s a spectrum, but it’s dumbbell shaped. Just getting a bit thicker about the middle, like most of us.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    It confuses me to no end that my very girly oldest child identifies male, especially since hearing them talk about it, it seems more a rejection of being seen as a sexual object than any desire to be a man.

    Even psychiatrists don’t psychoanalyze their own children.

    Maybe instead of hearing your child talk about it, talk to your child about it. Children aren’t clay that you stick in a you-shaped mold and expect them to come out no different from you.

    Maybe your “very girly” oldest child identifies as male because that’s what they consider themselves to be and your definition of “very girly” isn’t the same as theirs.

    Do you self-identify as male? Do you wear any colors other than grey? Congratulations, you’re “very girly” according to the first half of the 20th century.

    AnalogyAddict ,

    What makes you think I haven’t done such an obvious thing as to talk with my kid about it?

    Good grief.

    Put down the pitchfork.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Because you said “it seems” which suggests you are guessing but don’t actually know.

    And also because you think your own biased view of what is “very girly” has something to do with your child’s gender identity.

    So maybe you have talked to them about it, I don’t know, but it doesn’t sound like you listened.

    I mean this alone-

    Even if it breaks my old person brain a little.

    It should no more break your old person brain any more than it should finding out your child is not heterosexual. If it is breaking your brain, you need to check your prejudices.

    I’m glad your wouldn’t do anything about a child’s self-defined gender, but you still need to look at what you’re saying and how you’re judging.

    AnalogyAddict , (edited )

    Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it? Either that, or you’re just a bit histrionic. Either way, trying to attack me and call me prejudiced when you’ve judged me with very little logic or basic understanding is pretty rich.

    Move on, cowboy. You can’t shame or intimidate me when you grasp so little about my situation. Bullying is not the way to get people to re-examine themselves, even if it is their best path forward.

    Cosmicomical ,

    The post you posted clearly shows.that she is on the side that CAUSES the decline in free speech

    RatBin , (edited )

    People who use biology as an excuse to hate on people have no grasp on how biology even works. You should know that gender disphoria, gender transitions and other genders as well come in fact with small noticeable differences, such as the way the brain is wired and even the many mechanisms inside your body. Unfortunately, such differences are not noticeable right off the bat. But they exist. Also FFS, she could have just enjoyed her harry potter money, maybe she could go silent after the first tweet but come on! There’se no reason to go any further, no reason. She now dwells with the likes of her conservative friends - She’s no victim. There’s more money there than many of us could see in a lifetime. She actually has too much -

    Enkrod ,
    @Enkrod@feddit.de avatar

    Absolutely agree with you!

    People who use biology as an excuse to hate on people have no grasp on how biology even works.

    “There’s only two sexes, that’s biology 101”, yes, it’s literally 101, it’s what you get taught before you learn the specifics, the exceptions to the rules and the finer details of the multi-dimensional spectrum that is the impact of our biology on sex and gender.

    CileTheSane ,
    @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

    It’s like “there’s only 3 states of matter, that’s basic science!”

    Ashe ,

    Wait until you learn about this extreme thing called sublimation, it’s going to blow your mind…

    Oh it’s not directly one of the three states? Plasma isn’t real? I better learn my basics again.

    CileTheSane ,
    @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

    Whooosh

    Ashe ,

    This is a case of tone not coming across text well 😅

    I’m agreeing with you

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • tech
  • kbinEarth
  • testing
  • interstellar
  • wanderlust
  • All magazines
    •