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

Freedom of speech does not cover the freedom ... to threaten people, or to incite violence,

This is one of the problems with the TRA movement though - they've covered all their bases and now claim that reality based speech ("male people are men") is a literal violent threat and an incitement to violence. Which is where I get stuck, because I agree 100% with your comment but that general idea supposes that we're all rational actors engaged in critical thinking. TRAs aren't.

It’s damn near impossible to punish speech as a threat/incitement. We’re they actually to pursue that to its legal end, they’d lose.

[–] bumpyjerboa 6 points Edited

"Legal end" - of course, but as this whole post says you can suppress speech without lawsuits, fines, or prison sentences. I'm 100% ok with someone losing their job for being a Nazi, but when we're equated with Nazis (and as radfems, we quite literally are), what do we do? Shut up or get shut out?

I've honestly been struggling with this a lot lately, I welcome anyone else's thoughts.

Edit: by "this" I mean the fact that women like us can be so readily equated with racists who support genocide and "punished" for fighting for female liberation, and how to contend with that in considerations of free speech. Part of me feels like any good intentions (like trying to keep Nazis out of public life) are ultimately warped to harm women.

I guess my point was that they proceed with such confidence on this front, when they’re dead wrong. A threat isn’t a threat merely because the (delusional) hearer (purportedly) experiences or as such.

that is the slippery slope we face when we would deny nazis free speech. the aclu gets it wrong on the Dworkin-MacKinnon anti-pornography ordinance and gender ideology; but they get it right in defending parade permits in Skokie.