66

There is no true free speech for anyone who's gender critical anymore. The above statement, which I'm sure we've all read countless times by now, assures that anyone writing critically against the gender cult could be targeted for harassment (online and offline), and might end up cancelled and out of a job. All this for speaking their mind, for having the 'wrong thought'.

How did this mantra gain such traction? How can there even be such a thing as a 'wrong thought'? If your speech has consequences, then it's clearly not free. TRAs even use the word 'deplatform' to describe what they're doing against adverseries. They use the excuse that when someone is 'a bigot' they can do whatever is needed to silence this person. However, in these cases, the word 'bigot' is never clearly defined. It's just anyone who disagrees with or criticises them. Therefore JK Rowling is called a bigot for writing clearly and compassionately, without any bigoted ideas whatsoever.

Freedom of speech should be free, meaning that every word, every thought should be permissable. An idea should be met with well thought out criticism, but not dogpiling or harassment. And a thought should be met with another thought, and not mantras.

Maybe TRAs don't like freedom of thought, because they have so few thoughts themselves.

There is no true free speech for anyone who's gender critical anymore. The above statement, which I'm sure we've all read countless times by now, assures that anyone writing critically against the gender cult could be targeted for harassment (online and offline), and might end up cancelled and out of a job. All this for speaking their mind, for having the 'wrong thought'. How did this mantra gain such traction? How can there even be such a thing as a 'wrong thought'? If your speech has consequences, then it's clearly not free. TRAs even use the word 'deplatform' to describe what they're doing against adverseries. They use the excuse that when someone is 'a bigot' they can do whatever is needed to silence this person. However, in these cases, the word 'bigot' is never clearly defined. It's just anyone who disagrees with or criticises them. Therefore JK Rowling is called a bigot for writing clearly and compassionately, without any bigoted ideas whatsoever. Freedom of speech should be free, meaning that every word, every thought should be permissable. An idea should be met with well thought out criticism, but not dogpiling or harassment. And a thought should be met with another thought, and not mantras. Maybe TRAs don't like freedom of thought, because they have so few thoughts themselves.

53 comments

It's the disproportionality. "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" needs to be PROPORTIONAL. I write an editorial that is pro-GC? Consequence should be someone writes a response editorial that is anti-GC and some readers dislike me. NOT death threats, harrassment, attempts to have me fired, etc.

A group of radfems march with "transwomen are men" signs? By all means, countermarch with "transwomen are women" signs or "radfems are bigots" or whatever. But again, death threats, harrassment, attempts to have me fired, etc., are well past disproportional.

There seems to be a subset that reads "consequences" as "punishment", which is definitely a definition it gets in colloquial speech, particularly around parenting "if you do X instead of what I want, there will be consequences" where the parent is definitely threatening punishment. But these kids have grown up without nuance to that word, and don't understand it just means "stuff that happens after the action" That's the consequence. They are neutral. The consequences of washing my hair is that my hair is clean, but also wet. The consequences of sleeping late might be that you are better rested, but might also be that you are late for work.

Exactly this.

I have clear memories of when "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" first started taking off in online spaces over a decade ago. It meant exactly what you wrote, and I even typed it myself a few times. It never meant to harass the person, contact their job, contact their family and friends, send death and rape threats, etc. It just meant you can expect a response, because "freedom of speech."

It was used a lot in response to commenters who didn't like people debating them in the comments. They would post their opinion, get pushback with comments offering the opposing side's argument, and then act like they were persecuted and claim, "I'm allowed to have an opinion! Freedom of speech!" This led to other commenters pointing out that they can also have an opinion, and that you can't expect "freedom of speech" to mean that you can say something without any kind of pushback. It was most often seen with conservative commenters, I can't lie.

What's funny is that the genderists are doing exactly what the conservative commenters in this situation were doing. They refuse to hear dissent, so they think that any dissenting reply is an attempt to "silence" them. e.g. "You're saying I don't exist!!!" and "My existence will not be debated!!!" Meanwhile, they are actually silencing people's opinions by banning them out of subreddits, communities, pages, and eventually completely off of Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

I have a feeling that some of this relates to the theory that a lot of genderists/TRAs are old school MRAs and conservatives who have learned to troll the left by using "leftist tactics." They're doing a great job, because they've completely destroyed the left and made them look like fools for believing in this anti-science nonsense.