I know 8 trans people well and many more as acquaintances. The 8 people I know well range from being an old childhood friend, to coworkers, to students, to neighbors.

I'm mostly aware that they are trans at all due to the increase in anti-trans laws and blatant transphobia in the US. Were it not for that? I might not know or even care. I worry about them.

In each case the fact that they are trans is one of the less interesting things I know about them.

I sometimes want to just explain to the bigots, this could all be very normal if you'd stop huffing bigoted media and get to know someone who was trans. It's just like ... a hormone imbalance that can be treated. It's like being mad at people for having red hair. If only you knew how boring this could be, how normal. How easy to forget that they are trans.

And I could just forget, if it weren't for the bigotry and the threats to their safety.

In decades of knowing trans people and being in places that are more accepting of trans and LGBTQ people I've never once had someone say "how dare you misgender me" though if someone had I don't know if that would matter, it's just nothing like what people expect and fear.

No one is pole dancing. I do not live in a gay pride parade.

I'm a Christian, I go to church now and then. I'm inwardly kind of prudish and I don't even like being around people swearing much.

@futurebird
In my experience, LGBTQ people and their allies want it to be illegal to express yourself in a way that offends them, including misgendering.
Maybe it's different on your side of the pond.

@light

With an online conversation it's hard to know if someone who disagrees with you is being sincere or not.

"LGBTQ people and their allies want it to be illegal to express yourself"

There are always limits to expression. If I decide I don't want to call you by your name, but I feel that "Sealion" is a better name for you, I could get in trouble at work or at school for doing that after you object... because it's rude.

@futurebird
I have to admit, I don't currently work and I haven't been in school for ages. I'm still rebuilding my life. So I can't really comment on that last point. But I reckon it's probably different in those circumstances than in society as a whole. But still, https://qoto.org/@light/116217402058880799
Light (@[email protected])

@[email protected] It says on the page you linked: >Refusing to address a trans person by their preferred name and correct gender pronoun: > A manager repeatedly addresses a trans woman by her previous name or uses "he/him" pronouns, even though she has clearly communicated her preferred name and pronouns, undermining her gender identity in meetings and emails. >Repeated and deliberate mis-gendering of a trans person or people: > A co-worker continuously refers to a nonbinary employee using the wrong pronouns despite being corrected multiple times, doing so in conversations and written communication as a form of disrespect. This is what I take issue with. People should be free to express their opinion on whether a trans person is a man or a woman. Forcing them to act as if someone is a sex which they are clearly not is tyranny of the same kind as Winston Smith being forced to accept that 2+2=5. @[email protected] @[email protected]

Qoto Mastodon
Yes, I sincerely believe in freedom of speech. Is there a problem with that? Does that make me a "sea lion"? What even is a "sea lion"? Someone who asks questions? What's wrong with asking questions? Curiosity and debate are good things.
Do you also have this attitude with your students?
@futurebird

@light

If you have a job, and your boss is named "Jane" but you decide you'd rather call her "Debbie" since you think she looks more like a Debbie than a "Jane" and you also decide you'd rather only speak to her by singing... well is it "against free speech" if she fires you for being annoying and not treating her with respect?

@futurebird That's a silly example. A person's name is their prerogative. Calling someone by a name they don't want to be called by is just plain rude. This goes for both cis and trans people.
That being said, people in power shouldn't punish those "underneath" them for personal reasons.
But not all nouns are names. It's tyrannical to force someone to refer to a man as a "woman" or "she", or vice versa.

@light @futurebird

You think this is a good take because a lot of people who cleared the way for fascists to take over told you that free speech was freedom from accountability and consequences.

You can misgender and dead name anyone you want! You won't be arrested or even fined, nor should you be.

But, someone might get sick of you being a little piece of shit and pick you up and throw you out. And that's their right! They should do that!

And this is what we call "society". Welcome.

@light @futurebird

Btw if you want to change society so that you get to be a piece of shit but trans people don't get to exist in peace you aren't a "free speech advocate", you're just someone who prefers speech that is abusive and harmful and dramatically restricts and suppresses the expression and speech of others in service to abuse.

The vast majority of people who face consequences for their abusive speech literally sought out victims and abused them at work or at home or in the street.

@johnzajac @futurebird Free speech is free speech. If you limit what "free speech" is based on what sort of speech you personally, ideologically like, you, my foe, are a hypocrite and a tyrant.
@light The primary purpose of free speech is so people can tell us who they really are. Then come the consequences.
@Virginicus
Good. And don't forget to hit the door on the way out.
@light
I suspect you are American.
'Free speech does not include shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.'
Supreme Court, some time ago.
@johnzajac @light @futurebird @taylan
Freedom of speech literally means freedom from accountability and consequences tho. That's why it's federal law in many countries. Exactly for the state not to decide to impose "accountability and consequences" for you.
Your ideology is an exact copy of Idi Amins views on this
Idi Amin (former Ugandan dictat…

@dagda

Get some new material. No one believes y'all care about "free speech" anymore.

@dagda @taylan @light @futurebird

You literally want the right to verbally abuse people into not expressing themselves.

But wait! You *have* that right. That's why you're even on here writing anything at all.

Freedom of speech, everyone.

But that's not *all* you want. You also want *back* what you lost: the *privilege* to do that anywhere and everywhere, and have the powers-that-be back you up with guns and cash.

That some small amount of that power was lost is an unforgivable offense.

@light
You may not be forced to refer to someone.
If you feel the need, they almost certainly have a name.
@futurebird @[email protected] what are you sub tooting here?
@independentpen @futurebird I don’t think it’s a subtoot, I think it’s a reply to a troll account that got suspended.
@Moss @independentpen @futurebird Yeah it's just the classic transphobe using the "I can just tell" argument to justify misgendering.
Not worth wasting your time.

@light Just as a semi-disinterested observer: if I held *any* generosity or respect for your position, this disingenuous "well what does sealion actually mean? isn't it something incredibly harmless and positive?" made me lose it. No, a sealion is not somebody who just asks questions, and you know it.

@futurebird

@adriano @light

It never feels good to be wrong. I should know. I want to think "This will sink in if they think about it. And it's easier for me to talk about it than someone more directly invested"

But then I think about a friend who was with their girl scout troop on a trip and some jerk thought one of the girls "didn't look like a girl" and thought it was his duty to bring this up (and the child heard this!) because that's where this is going.

@adriano @light

If you are wondering "well was it a trans kid?" Why. That is irrelevant. That is the wrong thing to be worried about here.

Not all girls "look like girls" according to the whims of random men. Their opinions on "what is objectively a woman" are unimportant.

But, in this case it was a cis girl. Just not the most conforming kind of little girl. She wanted to see the dinosaurs at the Natural History museum. Will she even remember the dinosaurs or will she remember the asshole?

@futurebird @light In this moment where the USA government and several states are actually taking ID and rights away from trans and queer people it's a bit rich to have the gall to utter "In my experience, LGBTQ people and their allies want it to be illegal to express yourself in a way that offends them, including misgendering." Like, kudos, what a massive set of brass gonads.
@futurebird
I will ignore the dogpiling and consider your point.
Is it rude to say that a girl doesn't look like a girl?
Well, I assume it depends on the girl.
I am a man, and I have been repeatedly referred to as a woman online.
One (a transwoman) seemed to think I was actually a woman (specifically one who uses spinster.xyz). I was not offended. It seemed more funny than hateful.
1/2
@futurebird
A few others (also transwomen) sexually harassed me as a "woman", probably without any sincere opinion that I actually am, but who knows. That hurt me deeply. It also had the silver lining of making me empathise more with (actual) women.
Does that answer your question?
2/2

@light

"Is it rude to say that a girl doesn't look like a girl? Well, I assume it depends on the girl."

Listen to yourself. What are you going to do? Make a femininity chart for children with allowed haircuts and clothing choices? "If you have less than six points on The Light Noc Social femininity scale then it is fine to insult the child."

Come on. Cut it out.

Bruh. I'm done.

@futurebird
That's disingenuous. I am NOT saying that femininity or masculinity should be regulated or officialised or anything that. I am saying it depends on the person being "misgendered" whether it is offensive to them or not.

But you knew that. You don't actually care about dialogue. You just want to browbeat an unbeliever on the internet. Fuck you.

@adriano @futurebird No, I don't.
A sealion is someone who already thinks they know the right answer, but keeps asking questions to make it look like they don't, with the general goal of humiliating the people you're talking to, and making it look like they're wrong. Whether they are wrong doesn't matter to a sealion, because they already know the right answer. They think.

Another word for it is "The Socratic Method"
As an example "Yes, I sincerely believe in freedom of speech. Is there a problem with that?" No there is not a problem with that, you think. But you ask the question anyway because you want to see them fall over themselves failing to answer. Whether or not there is a problem with the belief in freedom of speech doesn't matter to you, because you've already decided there isn't.

CC: @[email protected]
@cy
It's just a perfectly normal rhetorical question. You hear them all the time in the real world. You know, the one away from your computer?
Seriously, I never heard anyone have a problem with them before I started using the internet.
You never got in trouble for saying a bad word?

I mean it's possible. Maybe that's just something that goes on in the States?
@cy
From whom? My parents? Maybe, at some point. I don't remember. I'm an adult now.
Well, when I speak with people I try to be careful in my speech, not to hurt anyone. Too often freedom of speech is an excuse for being a dick, and threatening people into submission, and I don't want people to do that. Thus, I do sometimes have a problem with "freedom of speech."

Not like other people here who are all "This is the list of no-no words." I'm not 6 years old. But for instance doxxing someone is an immediate loss of freedom of speech, IMO. It's too dangerous to let that kind of blackmail go unchecked.

@light

But you are not just asking questions. You came into this thread making an assertion. You choose to put forward an anti-trans opinion in a thread that clearly was designed to advocate for acceptance. And you were treated more kindly than you deserve for this rude behavior. You didn’t come here for debate. You came to posture and to safely assert your bigotry. You also seem to confuse freedom of speech with harassment. The laws you refer to do not limit free speech - they limit targeted verbal harassment. Bullies have always used speech as a tool for harassment. Laws that recognize that do not limit individuals from expressing their opinions freely.

@light

To elaborate. Let’s imagine you were employed. At work you misgender à coworker. They point it out to you. You freely assert that you don’t believe that trans women are women. The person freely asserts that you are being bigoted. No harassment has occurred. No law comes into force to limit any of this speech. However, from that point on, the person you misgendered stops using your name and preferred pronouns. Whenever you speak, they say “don’t listen to Bigot, she is an asshole.” They greet you in the morning with “Good morning Mrs. Bigot. Did you and your nazi friends find anyone to harass last night? Oh, sorry. I forgot Mrs. Bigot doesn’t have friends.” It is constantly like this. At this point, harassment is occurring. You might be able to use those laws you mentioned to stop the harassment. The bully can’t use a claim that “I believe that bigots need to be called bigots” as a defense for the harassment. Free speech is about expressing opinions. Harassment is not an opinion. It is an act.

@icastico Agreed. And repeatedly calling a transwoman a man or vice versa to their face in order to be mean is harassment. But repeatedly using accurate pronouns without ill intent is not, yet the law (at least in this country) seems not to distinguish AFAICT: https://reportandsupport.essex.ac.uk/support/harassment-related-to-gender-reassignment
Harassment related to gender reassignment* - Report + Support - University of Essex

@light

The text of that law clearly distinguishes between harassment (similar to what I described) and speech "without ill intent." What you are apparently failing to recognize is that your description is "repeatedly using accurate pronouns without ill intent." The law recognizes that once you have been informed that your opinion about what constitutes an "accurate pronoun" is disrespectful to the person - your continued use of that pronoun is a *deliberate* act of disrespect. You are deliberately choosing to use a term that the person has informed you causes emotional harm. Your claim of "without ill intent," at that point, is disingenuous (at best). You are choosing to do harm. That is an act, not expression. No different than the coworker in my example referring to their coworker as "Mrs. Bigot" repeatedly after being informed it is not appreciated.

@light

And to elaborate some more. Let's assume you are talking about "accidentally" using the wrong pronoun with your trans coworker on occasion - an act for which you apologize when it occurs -acknowledging the harm it causes. Something you try not to do. This is not harassment according to the law if you can show that you are making efforts to be respectful. The law targets harassment. Not speech.

And given that you have admitted that harassment is wrong and should be targeted by law, confusing the harassment targeted by the laws that you cite with "suppression of free speech" from this point forward would constitute another deliberate act. You acknowledge the distinction between opinion and harassment. So does the law. Asserting that the law doesn't, is disingenuous. You see that, right?

@icastico
>The law recognizes that once you have been informed that your opinion about what constitutes an "accurate pronoun" is disrespectful to the person - your continued use of that pronoun is a *deliberate* act of disrespect.
I disagree with that. To paraphrase a famous book, freedom is the freedom to say that men are male and women are female. If that is granted, all else follows.
@icastico
>And given that you have admitted that harassment is wrong and should be targeted by law,
I did not. Don't put words in my mouth.

@light

Your word was “agreed” - I didn’t put that in your mouth.

@icastico You said that harassment is wrong. That's what I agreed with. You implied that it *can* be targeted by law by saying it is not free speech. You didn't say that it *should* be targeted by law.
It's plausible to me that it should be. I am undecided.
@icastico
To use your earlier distinction, it is an opinion, not an act.

@light

Objectively incorrect. Pronouns aren’t used to assert an opinion in the way you are claiming. They are used as a form of reference. Just like names. We learn very young that some forms of reference are used to bully (“don’t call people names” is an early social lesson). Name calling as an adult (I.e., slander) is one of the most widely accepted exceptions to “free speech” as well. When you deliberately use a name that has been identified as harmful (like misgendering with a pronoun) you are not expressing an opinion. You are name calling. A form of harassment. Your earlier acknowledgement that “calling a woman à man to be mean” is harassment indicates that you get this distinction - that you recognize that name calling is a way to bully. Misgendering is name calling. It is bullying. It is not a way to express your opinion. The law you cite correctly makes this distinction. Your assertion that started this conversation about suppression of free speech is factually incorrect.

@icastico Misgendering can be used as a way to bully. It can also simply be a way of expressing your opinion while referring to someone.

Pronouns are not pure reference. They also contain an opinion on whether the referent is male or female based on whether the pronoun is 'he' or 'she'. That opinion IMO is free speech.
Also, regular nouns can be gendered as well as pronouns. In some languages other than English, verbs and adjectives as well.

@light Just in case you actually don't know:

A "sealion" is a type of troll. They ask questions but have no interest in hearing or understanding an answer because the purpose of a question is not to get an answer, but to trigger an emotional response and exhaust their target.

Every time the target provides an answer, the troll reframes the discussion. If the target complains, they are told that curiosity is good and the troll is "just asking questions." This allows the troll to either claim the target "can't answer the question" or to become justifiably offended; either way they leave the interaction feeling righteous.

It's not defined by "curiosity and debate" It's defined by whether both participants are honestly engaging in a shared search for understanding instead of an argument.

Your posts follow this pattern. If you are honestly interested in a discussion, rather than a fight, rethinking your approach might help.

@robotistry
>Your posts follow this pattern.
How? I didn't intend for them to.
>the troll reframes the discussion.
I wasn't doing this.
>have no interest in hearing or understanding an answer
Nor this.
>the purpose ... is ... to trigger an emotional response and exhaust their target.
Not my purpose.
I could go on.
@futurebird
Also, it's not rude to state a fact so long as you're not rubbing it in.

@light

This isn't about "free speech" at all. You should treat all people with basic human respect. If you don't wish to do that you may find that people don't want to be around you or work with you.

@futurebird That's fine. But police action backed up by violence is something entirely different and you know it.
@light @futurebird yeah man the police are notorious for beating people down for being rude to trans people they're just great allies like that

@light @futurebird

you are a fucking douche

just stating a fact