What good is freedom of thought and speech if one cannot exercise it? I probably drank the old american koolaid and have not yet had my sip of the new one.
The new koolaid is "I can say dumb things and if anybody calls me on it, I'm being oppressed." That has nothing to do with freedom of speech, there's no government here.
Sounds like you've been drinking plenty of the new koolaid.
The "old american koolaid" is to let your neighbor do whatever they please as long as "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" (Thomas Jefferson). Trans people aren't hurting anybody, and it's a travesty that one of our major political parties has made demonizing trans people into a wedge issue as part of a manufactured culture war.
If you're citing one of the many examples of when this has happened, but are compelled to use 'she' rather than 'he' to refer to the male athlete, then it rather dilutes the point being made.
Someone who holds a belief that trans-identifying males are women, but considers that they should be excluded from women's sports because of the long-lasting pubertal effects of testosterone, would likely have no issue with referring to one of these males as 'she'.
However, someone who doesn't believe that that such males can be women, and that this is the primary reason why they shouldn't be eligible to compete in women's sports, is more likely to use 'he' in reference to one of these males, as it reflects their underlying philosophical view on the issue.
I view this argument as analogous to someone is trying to justify slurring other minorities. Why slur them? Just treat them as people who are just trying to get through life and all its challenges.
Also all this focus on slurring a specific minority makes those doing the slurring seem mean, non-credible and non-compassionate to their fellow human beings. If someone starts slurring another minority, I will immediate dismiss anything they say next because they are showing they harbor hate - it isn't a rational discussion anymore, all facts are going to be distorted, things that lead to cognitive dissonance are going to be dismissed, and my motivations will be questioned. Who has time for that?
One example is Meghan Murphy, a high-profile Canadian feminist. She was discussing the case of a trans-identifying male who had sued several female beauticians - who offered their services solely to women - for refusing to do a Brazilian wax, which for this individual would have involved the handling of male genitalia. She referred to this male as 'him', and as a result was banned from Twitter for about four years (with her ban only being lifted after Musk's purchase of the company).
So on one side we have a trans-identifying male who was using the Canadian legal system to try to punish women for refusing to touch his penis and testicles. On the other side, a feminist writer who referred to this male as 'he' and 'him' while criticizing him for this. In applying their 'misgendering' rule, Twitter took the side of the former and sanctioned the latter.
By removing this rule, Twitter is allowing feminists like Murphy to speak freely about issues such as this on their platform.
Not just feminists either. Most people balk at phrases like 'her penis and testicles', even if they would normally play along with the fiction of this male being a woman.
It really does highlight the absurdity and dishonesty that is inherent in the belief system of gender identity, in that people are essentially being forced to say things that they don't really believe.
No one has to deny that she was trans. And everyone was free to criticize her behavior. Here is a great article that does not deadname her nor misgender her while also talking about the case accurately: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/trans-activist-files-another-human-rig... and this one as well is accurate: https://www.cranbrooktownsman.com/home2/b-c-trans-activists-...
I have to move on to other things and this conversation is going in circles.
No-one is denying that Yaniv is trans-identifying. What gender-critical feminists (and others) are denying are his claims of being a woman.
The question is whether social media platforms should compel their users to tell lies when discussing people such as this. Which is what anyone who holds the view that this individual is a man would be doing if they are forced to refer to him as 'she' or 'her'.
> Here is a great article that does not deadname her nor misgender her while also talking about the case accurately
Yes but the fact that some newspaper editors choose to immerse themselves, their writers and their readers in this fiction doesn't mean that everyone else should be compelled to do the same.
It's like a religion that feels it needs to insert "God is great" or "in his divine wisdom" into every sentence, just to make sure nobody questions their piety.
I'm pretty sure that calling out a celebrity billionaire's transphobia is exercising one's freedom of speech.
Says the person questioning why other people are utilizing their freedom of thought and speech.
I was trying to say, yes, Elon has pretty bad views these days, but this is still at least a semi-success, not a set back or failure.
I think it's useful to compare Musk with fire. Fire is useful, if controlled. Fire can be very damaging if not controlled. You have to control Musk while giving him the semblance that he's the one in control. Kudos to those who've successfully been able to pull that off.
Let's not pretend like he just has a "grudge" with trans folks. It goes many orders of magnitude beyond that. Perhaps he was not, and maybe he even still is not a transphobe, but right now he's tweeting like a full-blown transphobic maniac on Twitter. [1] That's a severely negative personality trait. Discriminating against a group of people simply because of the way they were born goes against the fundamental values of the Western society, freedoms, and should be criticized harshly at any avenue. It's relevant here, not because of Musk's speech (which I firmly believe every person is entitled to), but because Musk is an influential figure who contributes so much thought, inspiration, motivation and soft/hard influence to the world that it must be noted he's actively acting like an unhinged transphobe. This can be harmful to people and too much influence from a transphobic personality can be harmful for the society, in turn. Just like, a lot of influence from good people is good for society, a lot of influence from bad people is bad for society. It's worth noting.
[1] We saw, in many instances not only Elon Musk but many other people exaggerating their personalities and beliefs on Twitter.
Are you sure? Seems he's mostly been tweeting about SpaceX and Twitter: https://twitter.com/search?q=from:elonmusk&src=typed_query&f...
I can't see any recent tweets that match what you describe.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/elon-musks-2018-tweet-tesla-un...
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-new-racial-bias-trial/
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-219
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-twitter-shareholder-l...
https://www.space.com/spacex-technician-coma-rocket-test-acc...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/13/world/tesla-elon-musk-cor...
https://aa.law/blog/tesla-received-triple-the-amount-of-osha...
Full respect to all the workers who designed and built the rocket. But Elon Musk has absolutely done a bunch of crime.
This is what I describe as the “worse is better” model of freedom. As if the only way we can measure freedom is by counting how many extremely awful things occur in the world and concluding that more awful things is a clear indicator that we have more freedom. Is this a uniquely American concept?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemi...
The underlying theme is that a non-optimal system that nevertheless minimizes chances of tyranny and/or violence is better than say a society ruled by philosopher kings. So it's not so much that "more awful things is a clear indicator that we have more freedom", but rather that a system that takes it upon itself to stamp out "more awful things" (per whose definition?) will ultimately diminish freedom for all, and various "awful things" are certain to follow.
It is a matter that is still subject to debate. What is your solution?
And I’m fairly aware of Popper. I largely share his views, particularly those in The Open Society and Its Enemies and The Logic of Scientific Discovery. I don’t think he would point to, for instance, high murder rates as an indicator of freedom in a society or a preponderance of pseudoscientific theories as an indicator of freedom in a scientific community.