I don't know your opinion on trans-people. I'm sure it is a fair and compassionate position. Please don't think I'm criticizing you or your beliefs on trans-people. I'm challenging your belief that hate speech can be objectively enforced. Nothing else.
Sex is defined as:
> either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
You said:
> While the presentation of sex and sexual orientation may be mutable (someone can be female passing or straight passing) their orientation or sex itself is not.
Your thesis therefore is:
> A trans-person can adopt the form of a male or female but can not actually become a male or female. It is impossible for that person to assume the reproductive function of the opposite sex. The characteristic is immutable.
Your argument for enforcing hate speech regulations is:
> public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a group based on immutable characteristics.
The statement "trans-women are not female" is not hate speech under your definition. Correct?
If so you are in an interesting position. You have a direct line of communication to our censor. I would encourage you to post on your company's discussion board "it is not possible for a trans-person to change their sex". Or "trans-women are not female". Or "sex-change operations can not change a person's sex".
Be realistic with me. Can you imagine a scenario where those comments are received as plainly as "I prefer Warren over Sanders" or something similarly political but demure. Can you imagine a world where a significant fraction of the Bay Area would call you a transphobe and a bigot for those statements? Can you imagine a world where you keep your job after saying that?
Surely politics enters your company's discussion board from time to time. Would those statements fit well within the political discussion that takes place within your company?
I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm looking for your honest insight into the beliefs and attitudes of the people you work with and for.
Finally my argument:
> You can define hate-speech however you like. Enforcement of it will always depend on the attitudes of the group enforcing speech. The group enforcing the speech are your co-workers. Can you guarantee they will adhere to your strict definition of hate speech? Can you guarantee it will always be applied fairly and with restraint? Can you guarantee there will be appropriate appeals and review processes? If not how can you support censorship this close to the margins? > > If you truly believe that this sort of censorship can be carried out effectively and with restraint: prove it. Make the post and I'll read about it on the evening news.
---
Disclaimer: I have not and will not share my opinion of trans issues on this forum. Please do not interpret anything I've said as argument for or against trans rights.