This seems to be the reason for the change (jayclees is the creator and admin of the site):
https://ibb.co/48hY8fm
It's always telling when people describe a minority as a "political movement" rather than... people
It’s also telling when people frame any and all discussion around anything LGBT+ as “transphobic” and “trying to kill trans people”.
The current gender/trans ideology isn’t just scientific fact that has to be followed and believed. People should be allowed to disagree and question it without being censored and banned.
That seems to be the point the creator is making - they didn’t make it to be a circle jerking safe space for only the far left “progressives”. They made it for everyone to be able to talk about their beliefs without being censored and banned, but one ideological group absolutely doesn’t want that.
It is scientific fact; at least every major medical organization in the US is in total agreement about what you refer to as “gender ideology,” and what we call the existence of trans people.
“Just asking questions” about it is as disingenuous and false as “just asking questions” about evolution. If you truly believe trans people exist and deserve to be respected you wouldn’t feel the need to ask these questions.
But yes, the founder chose anti-trans concerns above trans concerns. LGBT people will leave and the platform will become a conservative circlejerk. You have that part right at least.
You've really jumped deep into things by assuming what the person you're responding to means isn't scientific fact is the actual existence of trans people. They could, but they were woefully vague.
Most people I've interacted with who have misgivings are more focused on things like the insistence that there are no differences between afab and amab bodies, and therefore trans women athletes should be allowed to compete against afab athletes.
That's a currently "unallowed to challenge" topic that pretty much immediately gets you labelled transphobic, but here's the rub: female athletes doping with testosterone to achieve higher muscle mass is something that is banned from sports competitions, so why does it matter whether it was artificially obtained via pill or naturally by the fact that they had years of body and muscle development as male before transistioning?
There's no good solution to this problem, but the fact that anyone who brings it up gets labelled as transphobic is ridiculous. It's not inherently denying trans people anything to discuss it (that has more to do with the person discussing it than the topic itself). For me it's an attempt to ensure that all female athletes afab trans or other are on an even playing field, ideally so people have less excuse to easily dismiss trans athlete achievements.
I don't think this is vague in the slightest:
The current gender/trans ideology isn’t just scientific fact that has to be followed and believed.
I know no person interested in trans liberation that also talks about "gender/trans ideology."
I find sports misgivings a red herring with regards to trans liberation. To me, it feels like asking someone to be less racist, and hearing them respond "well what about Black people in sports? What about white athletes' feelings? How do we determine if an athlete is white enough to compete against other whites?" The entire notion is wrong-headed to begin with. Yes, if we include trans people in sports, sometimes they might win. What's so bad about trans people winning at sports?
In any case, clearly the person I was responding to was not talking about this.
Here is the thing when it comes to sports, there are usually two main divisions in most sports, the best of the best league, and the women league. In most sports there is technically no rule against women playing in the best of the best leagues, but they are just at so much of a disadvantage it is almost unheard of for them to be able to compete at that level. The only reason that women only sports exist is to allow people with that biological disadvantage to compete professionally against others with the same disadvantage. It's a league that's sole purpose is to allow women to be competitive against other women because the men are just so much better.
It might sound like I'm bashing women's sports, but I'm not. I'm glad women have an avenue to compete at pro levels, because without women only sports they would not.
I have no problem with anybody trying to compete in the best of the best league, men, women, trans, black, white, etc. But when it comes to leagues specifically limited to give those in the league a fair competition, we shouldn't be opening that up to those who don't have the disadvantage that defines the league. This applies to women leagues, the special Olympics, and other limited leagues.
I know this, I just don’t think it matters. Our a priori assumption must be trans people should be included everywhere as much as possible, just like Black people or Jewish people. Fairness will adjust to our expectations, so everything will feel fine in the end, just as it did when we allowed other minorities to compete in leagues they were formerly barred from.
Exactly.
The NFL isn’t a male league for example - it’s an open league. How many women have ever even made it to the tryout stage? One. A kicker. She didn’t come close to making even a training squad.
Sam Kerr, the best women’s soccer player on earth, wouldn’t even get close to making a men’s pro team. The world beating women’s USA team, winners of the past 2 world cups, got annihilated by an under 15s boys team.
Sex matters in sport, not gender.
You’re right, it’s not vague at all - it’s not denying trans people exist in any way. Trans people existing isn’t an ideology, so questioning the current trans and gender ideology has nothing to do with trans people existing or not. You’re jumping to conclusions because you want to dismiss any opinion you don’t agree with, and currently the “that’s transphobic!” line is basically a get out of jail free card in that way. Just call someone transphobic and get them banned so you don’t have to have your opinion challenged, create that echo chamber you want so badly.
Your response to the sports issue of “what’s so wrong with trans women winning women’s sporting events” says it all. “Who cares about biological women, the feelings of trans women matter more.”
Trans women can compete with men. If there is no physical or biological advantage for males then why do they need to compete with the women? They can compete with the men and should do just fine.
Lia Thomas is all that needs to be pointed out for why your ideology here is wrong. 500+ ranked man……instantly #1 ranked woman. Breaks all the women’s records. Where are the trans men swimmers dominating the men’s division in swimming? Or in track and field? Cycling? Anywhere at all?!
Bingo.
No one denies trans people exist, but this is how the “progressives” that want males competing with females in sport and using female-only services frame any and all questioning of their ideology and motives.
That's the point OP was making when they said LGBT+ isn't political. LGBT+ isn't an ideology for people to share "beliefs" about. It will exist whether or not you believe in it, and normalizing people who say I don't believe in it is essentially denying the LGBT+ person's identity. It's ok to say you don't understand, or even like it, but to simply say "you're making up your gender identity" is wrong and harmful.
The current LGBTQ+ ideology is a political ideology though. It’s not just facts and it’s not about “existing” like people try to make it out to be.
The current trend of “a 3 year old boy that plays with barbies is trans so should be put on puberty blockers” is an ideology, same with “trans women have no physical advantages over biological women”, same with trying to teach 8 year olds about anal sex and masturbation. None of these things have anything to do with people “existing”.
The ideology that says simply saying you’re a woman makes you a woman and therefore are entitled to women-only places and things like scholarships and awards is what most people are against. No one cares if a 25 year old biological male wants to put on a dress and wear makeup and call themself Jane. Most people will even play along with your new pronouns. People shouldn’t be forced to by law though, and that’s another of the big issues people have.
Tl;dr - being trans isn’t political. Pushing the current trans beliefs and ideologies like gender identity, self ID, and “trans women are women” is.
How are medically approved operations by doctors an ideology? As long as the parents and their doctors have identified an issue they need to address, and the procedure they decide on is safe, reversible, and is known to make the child's life happier, who are you and I to stop them?
Pushing the current trans beliefs and ideologies like gender identity, self ID, and “trans women are women” is.
That's conservatives making it political. Claiming your own gender identity is not political, it's a natural human behavior to self identify. Please explain how you can say trans people can exist while at the same time if they try to self-identity then they're being political? There's no "conservative gene" that prevents you from choosing your gender identity (i.e. Caitlyn Jenner). Just acknowledging transgenderism exists is completely apolitical. If you see it as "pushing gender identity" that's your problem.
How are medically approved operations by doctors an ideology?
I didn't once mention medically approved operations? If you're talking about doing them on kids then that's a whole other issue.
and the procedure they decide on is safe, reversible, and is known to make the child’s life happier, who are you and I to stop them?
And here lies the problem - parents pushing their ideology on to their kids. Also what "trans surgeries" are "safe and reversible"? None. Cutting off your male genitalia is not reversible. A hysterectomy is not reversible. Cutting off your breasts is not reversible (though you can at least try and make up for it with breast implants). Puberty blockers are not fully reversible, and most countries are now acknowledging this. You simply cannot stunt someones physical (and mental) growth and have it just resume years later as if nothing has changed. There are zero long term studies on puberty blockers. There are however known long term issues with them.
it’s a natural human behavior to self identify.
Not as a different gender/sex it's not. It has only become a thing very recently, where simply saying "I'm a woman" now means you're a woman, no questions asked.
Please explain how you can say trans people can exist while at the same time if they try to self-identity then they’re being political?
That's not at all what I said. Pushing for being able to let "Self ID" give you access to the opposite sexes spaces and sports and awards and other things is the political part. Trans people existing has nothing to do with that. The issues with self ID are that men who have literally done nothing to transition can now go in to womens events/spaces without question. A great example is the weightlifting competitions where gender Self ID was allowed, so a anti-self id man entered and just annihilated the competition as a protest to show how stupid it is. The only requirement for him to enter the womens competition was for him to tick a box saying he's a woman.
Transgender and gender ideology are different things. Transgender is "I am the other gender to what I was born as". Gender ideology is "I can be whatever gender i want, whenever i want, and can change gender a thousand times during the day, and I should get all of the rights afforded to whichever sex/gender i call myself at the time". They're not one and the same.
"Let's have a reasonable rational debate about whether certain groups should have the right to exist! If you're a member of one of these groups, please be respectful to the people who say you should be exterminated!"
The phrase "free speech platform" sounds like a giant, enormous dog whistle. Which is a damn shame, because I used to enjoy that place, and now I'm not sure I will anymore... Don't want to jump to conclusions, but is there ANY self-described "bastion of free speech on the internet" that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?
I'm a white, heterosexual cis male in my 40s not living in the US, so this does not affect me in any way, shape or form directly, but it still feels just icky, unnecessary and tone-deaf. Guess I'll post photos of my succulents and my goofy dog just on Lemmy from now on, bummer...
but is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?
The thing is that you're just calling people that you disagree with "awful people" because they have different opinions. They also think you're awful for the same reason.
People need to get away from this idea that people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions and ideas. I'm all for completely unrestricted free speech. Let racist people spew their racist hateful garbage - but let people call them out on it. Let people try to change their mind. Let people show them exactly how they're being a piece of shit.
All you have to do is give people options to block/mute people and you can take care of it yourself. What I hate is when people call for censoring and banning of differing opinions on a platform level.
That is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that every single online platform that I know that describes itself as a "free speech platform/bastion/zone/whatever" gets sooner or later filled to the brim with people spouting vile, deplorable and often violent rhetoric.
I can discuss a lot of things and accept, understand or at least tolerate a lot of opinions differing from mine, but things like "black people are sub-human", "gays should be killed" or "preschoolers can be sexy"* are NOT in that group. And these types of comments are inevitably what naming your site a "free speech platform" attracts in my experience. I think there is no way to discuss (or even just utter) them in good faith, and yes, I do consider people holding such beliefs to be awful - it's not like I’m trying to use the term lightly or to denote folks who like different pizza toppings or TV shows than I do...
My point is that just because you can't tolerate them it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to be presented. Like I said - give people the ability to block/mute people and let them self moderate what content they interact with and see. You don't like people saying "black people are sub human" and don't want to have a conversation with them to point out why they're wrong etc? Cool, block them. Problem solved.
I will discuss anything with anyone. I'll happily debate a racist to try and show them why they're wrong and being a piece of shit. I'll debate a flat earther to show them the facts that prove the earth is round. If/when the racist starts name calling and being disingenous I'll call them out on it and if they double down I simply block them - that's what I've done in this very thread when some guy started name calling and becoming abusive when we were 6 comments deep each in conversation. I disagreed with their viewpoint, but I would never want their ability to give their viewpoint to be taken away. Once it became clear that they were not interested in an actual discussion and just resorted to name calling, I simply blocked them and "walk away".
That is what free speech advocates want. Just because you're offended by something it doesn't mean it should be censored or banned. As Ricky Gervais said:
"I want people to stop saying that joke's offensive. I want them to start saying "I found it offensive" because that's all that it is. You're just telling me how you feel about it."
I think it is a dog whistle , here in India there are people who openly talk of genocide , homophobia and what not and call it their right to speech and expression !
I mean that is literally what a right to free speech means, so they're not wrong.
That way yall can let nazi shit going and call it freedom of speech , murder is also freedom of expression in a way then ?
No, not at all. Murder is an action that is illegal. Saying something isn't, no matter how much you disagree with it. I don't like people saying racist stuff, but I'm certainly not of the belief that they shouldn't be allowed to say it.
Now imagine people holding hate speech conferences where they gather and talk about cleaning the population (a dogwhistle to genocide) I wonder if that is ok ! And the riots that happen coz of the radicalised masses ?
And the riots that happen coz of the radicalised masses ?
Aren't these called "mostly peaceful protests" now? Or is that only when it's your "side" that's doing the rioting?
The "funny" thing is that the moment those people have power they don't have a problem going against free speech (see having books banned (in the US) or trying to stop people from voicing their opinion (Meloni in Italy))
It's all just exploiting the tolerance of the system in order to make it less tolerant That's why completely unchecked free speech is a bad idea as it will eventually lead in its complete demise
It's called thinking freedom of speech means freedom to be a fucking asshole.
Free speech means people have to hear things they disagree with, and that is violence apparently.
Judging by the number of downvotes my question received, looks like most people here prefer censorship over expressing ideas.
Yeah the irony of the people who call other people fascists just begging for censorship is hilarious. They don’t even see what they’re doing. They are the nazis in this situation. They’re the ones calling for violence against “terfs” and the murder of politicians and Supreme Court members.
Yeah, that's the Paradox of Tolerance. Short version: If you're being intolerant, why should I tolerate you?
To paraphrase Karl Popper: A society that values tolerance to the point of indulging those that oppose it will effectively be defenseless against that hate. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reason with them first, but we need to reserve the right to shut them up, by force if we have to.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Karl Popper, 1945, The Open Society and Its Enemies
I do hope that you see how that same exact idea applies to all sides though, right? It’s basically saying that Nazis are allowed to use force to shut up the other side as well.
I don't think the Nazis care about what I think they should or should not be allowed to do. They're going to use violence, whether or not I hold a gun or a white flag. If I say "No, force is bad!" they're going to say "Suit yourself!" and use it anyway. How am I going to stop them?
An ideology is worth only as much as the people defending it. If I am so concerned with the letter of the law if tolerance that I refuse to defend its spirit, I'll be condemned along with it.That's the point of the paradox: If we deny ourselves the use of force, we're essentially conceding that right to them.
This an ideological conflict. We each believe the other is in the wrong, so whatever rules the other attempts to impose have no bearing on us because they're wrong. Hence: We should try rational argument first and hope to keep them in check by public opinion, but when that fails?
You can go stand in the middle and be proud of your enlightenend and nonviolent convictions. And when they next shoot up a gay night club or a black church, you can go and look the dying victims and their grieving loved ones in the eye and say "Aren't you glad these people get to freely encourage each others' bigotry?"
So when it comes to dealing with fascists, I'll listen to the guy that watched the rise of the original fascists, the failure of democracy, and took notes
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
(ibid)
The problem is you’re not even trying the rational argument, you’re going straight to censorship and in doing so you’re steeling their resolve and converting more people to be against you.
It’s like the “just stop oil” people - by doing their stupid protests that only hurt regular people they’re hurting their cause and turning people against them.
I don't understand what I'm looking at here? Some reddit-ish place is declaring free-speech then they immediately backpedal and say racist stuff doesn't count, and also some admins left? So what is the material difference between a "free speech platform*" and lemmy which also doesn't allow racist stuff?
Literally why would you go to this website over Reddit. It has all the same problems and is just more boring.
"Free speech" is just a dog whistle and gas lighting now. Unless it's fully allowing illegal content, then it's not free speech, which is obviously sane to not allow. That's why its a silly term to throw around in the first place.
“Free speech” is just a dog whistle and gas lighting now.
You're not wrong, but I remember when free speech was more of a liberal issue. Freedom for artistic expression and all that. Freedom to curse in music, freedom to create and view porn etc.
They're currently at level 4 (arguably maybe level 2) of the content moderation speedrun: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/
Next step is for them to start dealing with DMCA takedowns.
I hope people know that us all having instances would always be better than anything centralized elsewhere. 1) I can delete all my posts if I want. 2) anyone can make a better app to talk to it. 3) we got so many different ways of sharing our free speech here, it's not even funny. 4) you can backup your stuff. I'm not, but you can do that if you serve your own server. 5) you can establish your own rules or land on someone else's server that you trust.
At this point you gotta be a lower form of life to conclude that going centralized is good for anyone.
You deleting your posts from your own instance doesn't magically delete them from every other instance.
Seems to be standard functionality according to this:
https://fedi.tips/how-do-i-delete-a-post-on-mastodon/#:~:text=There%20are%20actually%20two%20delete,make%20changes%20and%20repost%20it.
According to the same article it can fail if the server is malfunctioning. But I would assume only rogue servers would do this intentionally...like suddenly kick all users or a particular user out and lock them out of their delete option.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/
