104

Short version: I casually outed myself as gender critical today. It was almost a casual aside in the conversation. I stated my belief as a reasonable position and didn't even elaborate. Then the conversation moved elsewhere.

Longer version: I am a student (non-traditional, I'm 41 years old) and I was having lunch with a really bright guy that I met because he was the T.A. of an ethics class I took last semester, and will be the T.A. again of a course on the First Amendment class I am taking this spring.

He has a JD and is getting a Doctorate in Journalism. We can talk for hours about free speech rights, hate crime laws, the state of journalism. Etc.

He knows that I come down on the side of [borderline] free speech absolutism. We were talking about, among other things, Nadine Strossen's book on "Hate: Why we need to combat it with more speech, not censorship" and radical feminist Catherine McKinnon.

So at some point in the conversation I said that one of my main problems with hate speech laws is that inevitably, someone gets to decide what is and isn't hate speech.

I said "For example, one of the reasons I lean towards radical feminism is because I believe gender is a construct and sex is an immutable, unchangeable reality. Some would deem that hate speech. It is not."

He nodded and agreed and that was that. The conversation moved organically on wards without delving into that point.

So not only did I out myself as GC I did so to someone thick in the throws of liberal academia. A little bit of confidence goes a long way!

Man that felt good!

Edit to add, since this came up in the comments: It wasn't a win because I think I convinced someone over to our side. It was a win because it was agreed that it was a reasonable, and not hateful, belief to hold. The non-issue of the statement in the context of our conversation was really the win.

Short version: I casually outed myself as gender critical today. It was almost a casual aside in the conversation. I stated my belief as a reasonable position and didn't even elaborate. Then the conversation moved elsewhere. Longer version: I am a student (non-traditional, I'm 41 years old) and I was having lunch with a really bright guy that I met because he was the T.A. of an ethics class I took last semester, and will be the T.A. again of a course on the First Amendment class I am taking this spring. He has a JD and is getting a Doctorate in Journalism. We can talk for hours about free speech rights, hate crime laws, the state of journalism. Etc. He knows that I come down on the side of [borderline] free speech absolutism. We were talking about, among other things, Nadine Strossen's book on "Hate: Why we need to combat it with more speech, not censorship" and radical feminist Catherine McKinnon. So at some point in the conversation I said that one of my main problems with hate speech laws is that inevitably, someone gets to decide what is and isn't hate speech. I said "For example, one of the reasons I lean towards radical feminism is because I believe gender is a construct and sex is an immutable, unchangeable reality. Some would deem that hate speech. It is not." He nodded and agreed and that was that. The conversation moved organically on wards without delving into that point. So not only did I out myself as GC I did so to someone thick in the throws of liberal academia. A little bit of confidence goes a long way! Man that felt good! Edit to add, since this came up in the comments: It wasn't a win because I think I convinced someone over to our side. It was a win because it was agreed that it was a reasonable, and not hateful, belief to hold. The non-issue of the statement in the context of our conversation was really the win.

18 comments

Glad you said it, and glad he didn't pull a Wokebro Willie.

It kills me that people talk about "outing myself" when stating basic facts.

You can't "out" yourself as a heliocentrist. Well, not unless you're surrounded by geocentrists, in which case you've traveled back in time! Take me with you and drop me off in the 80s. We didn't have this nonsense.

Seems to me we should talk about people "exposing themselves as Wokesters" rather than "I bravely made a factual statement." I don't like to see women live in fear of speaking the truth.

I agree with you 100% and I wish it were the reality we lived in, that stating truth wasn't at all noteworthy.

You are absolutely right about exposing people as wokesters. I’m going to try and start doing that, it should be pretty easy. “Did you hear what so-and-so said about gender feels/preying on children/ throwing women under the bus, etc.”

You’d be surprised by how many TERF thought crimes, punishable by death on Twitter, don’t even blip on people’s radar if you don’t expressly describe it as a TERF/gender critical opinion. Lately, I’ve been increasingly open with my opinions, and in every instance of doing so thus far, my views have been accepted as commonsensical. In the one case where someone disagreed, they didn’t get offended or perceive me as hateful; they just disagreed, which is, of course, perfectly fine.

I swear, these little reminders that our ideas are the ones that intuitively make sense feel so damned good. Gives me hope that I’m not living in The Twilight Zone after all…

I LOVE when we find those opportunities to state a reasonable position without turning it into A Thing. Well done!

I accidentally had a similar conversation with a TIF coworker the other day. The thing is, I genuinely like her when she isn’t spouting off a bunch of pro-trans pro-prostitution anti-woman bs and everyone else I interact with at work is completely ideologically captured so I have to be very careful with what I say.

Basically she agreed with something I’d said about how I believe that [sexual] consent can’t be bought (not in a ‘woke’ context) and then I watched her face change as she realized what she had just supported. Hopefully she interprets that as a SW survivor laying out facts based on experience instead of turning to the Internet mob to tell her how to feel about it.

Part of me wants to believe he agrees but the other part of me wonders if it was a dismissal. Did he have any other tells? Body language? Expression?

I didn't presume he was agreeing with the statement or even thought too hard about it. I took the nod to mean he was agreeing that it wasn't hate speech or hateful to hold that belief.

Many times in our conversations he would talk about things he didn't necessarily agree with but that he thinks are reasonable positions to hold. Thats why we talked about Nadine Strossen a lot, I fall more on the free speech absolutism side than he does.

His body language and expression were unchanged from the rest of the conversation.

ah gotcha, and yeah, that in and of itself can be a small win then

Yeah I think the win was more than I stated it as a reasonable position and it was not a big deal at all. I'm not saying I converted someone to our side, sorry if that wasn't clear.

Perfection! And good on him for hearing what you had to say. Gosh I love hearing about people having normal conversations!