• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s all fine and dandy until people change the definition of those words to suit their needs. Then all speech they disagree with is hate speech. Which has already happened

    Let’s get some examples there chief.

    Link what you think is “fine” and has been labeled hate speech

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But that’s fascists calling reality fake…

        We can’t take any of them seriously. I didn’t think I had to keep pointing that out in 2023.

        I meant a rational person declaring something they don’t like as hate speech.

        Do you understand how crazy it is to say:

        We can’t call anything hate speech, because the people using hate speech all the time call everything they don’t like hate speech

        Fascists have been trying to do that forever, dont start falling for it now all of a sudden.

        • Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But that’s fascists calling reality fake…

          Yuuup. Just like they say about liberals calling for the protection of pronouns: “Genders is gender!”

          So yeah, sorry, but we have to be VERY careful about any kind of “Free speech, except…” because anyone can fill in that blank.

          Don’t act like this is some crazy tactic that no one would fall for. There are kids down the street from me RIGHT NOW learning about how slavery is misunderstood and it gave people lots of valuable skills.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            ironically, slavery just being misunderstood is due to the “I will defend your right to say ANYTHING crowd”

            • Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Under freedom of speech I expect idiotic ideas like this to arise, what’s unacceptable is when that free speech is undermined so teachers can’t deliver the truth. Never undermine freedom of speech. This is where we end up.

              • orrk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                but a lot of the teachers are fine with the changes.

                In your “not undermined free speech”, what stops a teacher from simply teaching that the blacks were lucky and should have been happy to be slaves? or would you enforce a certain “factual viewpoint”, and by your own argument, undermining free speech? after all, it is “their truth”.

                No, we put limits on free speech all the time for a lot of good reasons, we don’t let people call themselves doctors without the qualification, nor police, we don’t let people sell you paint stripper and call it milk, etc, etc, etc…

                • Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  There’s a massive amount of teachers that don’t agree and would face legal troubles if they say anything to the contrary

                  I hear your point about limiting people’s free speech in a narrow band, like misrepresenting themselves as doctors. And I’ll admit my argument breaks down a little here because I do believe teachers should generally have to follow an approved plan. My overall point here is that Republicans are weaponizing any exception to the rule of free speech. So we should be very careful about how we use it. That’s the whole point of free speech. No one can be trusted to be the referee.

                  With free speech there’s millions of ideas out there and most of them are shit, it’s very difficult to find the good ones. And that sucks. I hear you. But without free speech we get to have one idea and you don’t get to pick what it is. If that doesn’t scare you I don’t know what would.

                  If teachers are allowed free speech, you’re right, some might teach kids slavery was beneficial. But without free speech, teachers are being FORCED to teach that slavery was beneficial. You see how that’s worse right?

                  • orrk@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    and? it used to be the other way around with the teachers, now it’s just in the racist disinformation direction. It used to be that many teachers also complained that they were forced to teach “woke propaganda”

                    by your logic, any teacher that believes the POC/LGBTQ are trying to destroy America should be able to instill that into their students. And yes, often times you don’t get to pick the truth, you don’t get to pretend that the holocaust was a Jewish plot to try and destroy the white man, you don’t get to call for lynching that N***** because he kissed a white lady, and you don’t get to advocate for dragging gays down the street via rope from a car.

                    As for weaponizing any exception to the rule of free speech. have you been asleep for the last 50 years? Republicans are across the board the most anti-free peach group in America, only allowing its existence in so far as it serves their hate filled ideology, they don’t weaponize restrictions on free speech, they bitch and moan if they literally can’t call for the holocaust 2 electric boogaloo.

                    As for the “No one can be trusted to be the referee”. that is bullshit. somehow, most of the rest of the 1st world manages to do just fine, But i guess this is just another one of those unavoidable things that strangely only happens in the USA.

      • random65837@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        56
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, they’re stopping woke political teachings of race. Not anything else. The differences in race and our history has always been taught, and will continue to be. Teaching black kids that they’re victims of white people, and white kids that’s they’re racists has NO place in their education. And that HAS been taught to them. Those teachings take innocent children and MAKE them racist against the other race. There’s no other outcome.

          • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Downvoted solely for use of “cucked”. For fuck’s sake, that word needs to die, not be “reclaimed” or whatever the fuck. It just makes me irrationally angry.

        • can@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Who is telling white kids they’re racist? Honestly.

          Oh do you mean their ancestors? Because that’s kind of a big difference.

          • ZeroCool@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Exactly. Nobody is telling white kids they’re racist for existing. That dude just exemplifies the kind of brain rot you get when all your news comes from Breitbart, Fox News, and Facebook memes.

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except black people’s lives have been made worse by white people. Where’s the lie? White kids are not being taught they’re racist. I got a “woke” education and white people were not taught that they’re inherently bigoted. In fact, we were taught that anyone can be a bigot, regardless of who they are, and that any category can be used to cause division and hate.

          I wish you would take your face out of the slop of lies the right wing media feeds you. It makes me sad.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Where’s the lie?

            as a white conservative, I think it’s an affront to justice that I can’t call black people N****s and have to “respect their rights”! true freedom is having the right to own people!

        • naught@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What school is teaching what you said? Are you familiar with actual CRT and where it is applied? Hint: not in grade schools. Nobody thinks white children should be ashamed of their race and vice versa. Giving students an accurate history and equipping them to understand racial issues is vital. Let’s not confuse ignorance with innocence.

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There have been some laws passed by several states to label criticisms of Israel’s apartheid state as hate speech and outlaw BDS boycotts based on that.

      Do not assume the right wing won’t try to turn whatever tactic you find effective against them back at you. That doesn’t mean you should stop using it though; they certainly aren’t going to drop it now that they’ve found a way to wield it.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the same as the other example someone gave…

        Fascists calling something hate speech so we stop talking about their fascism.

        Why does this work on so many people?

        What logic are you using that this means we can’t use the term “hate speech” anymore?

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I specifically said to continue using it. Right wingers using it for right wing goals doesn’t mean that it’s inherently bad or something. Labeling things hate speech is a useful tool, but don’t trick yourself into thinking your opponent can’t use it.

    • random65837@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      51
      ·
      1 year ago

      Link what you think is “fine” and has been labeled hate speech

      Sure, lets start with having a penis making you a man, and a vagina making you a woman. Referencing indisputable biology has been called both hate and a phobia more times than I can count.

      • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, there it is. At least you’re willing to say it and not tiptoe around it like a coward.

        The reason the scientific community does not endorse the conservative gender ideology, is because it causes much more direct harm than good to human happiness. If we don’t let trans people transition, their lives are so much worse that they are seriously likely to kill themselves. Most of the negative consequences of transition come from bigotry, something that is unequivocally on the bigot, not the trans person. Most people who “detransition” after taking hormones do so because of hate rather than because they realize it wasn’t for them.

        There is no direct harm caused to people who aren’t trans so long as they treat other adults as equals, and let children access the help they need. Trans people are not more likely to be the perpetrators of violence, they’re more likely to be the victims of it. Male predators don’t need to pretend to be a woman to get into women’s bathrooms or intrude on their spaces. The anti trans rhetoric is based on lies.

        The biggest thing you need to recognize about your position is that it helps the insanely corrupt and selfish far right political groups like the American GOP. It is a wedge issue used to promote incompetent rulers who hate anyone that isn’t a rich male member of the largest cultural group. Even if you don’t believe you hate trans people, your support allows trans people to be legally persecuted for trying to live. I am not exaggerating, trans people are losing lifesaving treatment and being forced from public life, thanks to the refusal of people like you to stand up against the bigots.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You did prove them right, though. It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.

          So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.

          Are you all misunderstanding this discussion on puporse? Or do people struggle to understand how replying on Lemmy works? You all are now arguing against me how it’s bigoted to misgender someone.

          I will put the discussion into this comment again, just because I hope you seriously just lost track of what was said.

          Person says:

          That’s all fine and dandy until people change the definition of those words to suit their needs. Then all speech they disagree with is hate speech. Which has already happened.

          This gets 10 upvotes, 120 downvotes.

          Another person answers:

          Let’s get some examples there chief. Link what you think is “fine” and has been labeled hate speech

          This gets 72 upvotes, 2 downvotes.

          The person replies with:

          Sure, lets start with having a penis making you a man, and a vagina making you a woman. Referencing indisputable biology has been called both hate and a phobia more times than I can count.

          5 upvotes, 42 downvotes.

          And now people go on a tangent how it’s bigoted, dangerous and wrong to misgender people. How the defintion of words change etc.

          Are you all dense or something? That’s literally what the person was saying! But by pointing that out you all somehow try to paint the person as bigoted. That’s completely besides the point? Is someone else seeing what’s going on here?!

          • VOwOxel@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And other words change if they are acceptable or not. In our grandparent’s childhoods, it was usual to call a black person a n*****. Now it isn’t, and that’s a good thing, isn’t it?

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              But that’s not the point of the discussion? The person said that things that used to be fine can suddenly be not tolerated. People downvoted the person and claimed that’s not true.

          • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.

            Still is fine, you wont go to jail for accidently misgendering someone. At worst you may illicit an awkward cough in the room and maybe someone will take you aside later and be like “bruh they are (other gender) haha” and you would be like “Oh shit! My bad!” and that should typically be the end of it.

            I’m a dude with just very long hair, cuz I like its style. I get misgendered all the time from the back, people call me a lady or ma’am all the time.

            When they see me up close they often go “Oh geez Im sorry!” and I just laugh and tell them not to worry about it, it happens all the time. Thats about it. Thats the whole interaction.

            Thats right, misgendering happens to cis people all the time too, and this type of social interaction is an ancient one that has been around for a millenia.

            No one actually gives a shit.

            Now if you PURPOSEFULLY misgender someone to try and hurt them…

            That is actually a fucking problem and now you are being an asshole. But thats not just for trans folks! That applies to cis people just as much.

            Let me ask you this: You walk into a bar with a biker gang, and a big burly dude is in there and you call him a woman, and he informs you sternly (cough) that he is a man, and you keep calling him a lady and are clearly trying to piss him off, you tell me how well that will probably turn out for you.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What the hell are you talking about?

              In no way or form did I say it is okay to misgender someone.

              Please try to understand what this discussion was about. It was about the very fact that words and things that were okay to say in the past, are sometimes not okay to say anymore today.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            N***** used to just be the word for black people, coming from the word Latin “niger”([ˈnɪɡɛr]) and meaning the color black, almost every Romance language still uses it, but I would strongly suggest not using it in the USA.

              • orrk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                yes, I agree that we should all be allowed to say N***** because the only reason we can’t is because of Woke speech police! and while we are at it, why should anyone be upset with me that I point out the fact that the Holocaust never happened, and it was all orchestrated by (((them))) and how we should find a solution to (((them))), perhaps a rather final one.

          • darthfabulous42069@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You need to learn that such things are a part of life and you have to deal with it in order to be a member of society. The existence of progress doesn’t negate the need for hate speech protection. All societies have to change with time and that’s okay.

            I think you all forgot the purpose behind policies like freedom of speech and natural rights and that’s why you’re getting all mixed up.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What the hell are you talking about?

              In no way or form did I say it is okay to misgender someone.

              Please try to understand what this discussion was about. It was about the very fact that words and things that were okay to say in the past, are sometimes not okay to say anymore today.

          • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Language will always be a moving target. If you said “woman used to mean x and now it means y” you’d be fine. The problem isn’t that language changes with us, it’s equivocation. Using women two different ways in a conversation is a dick move.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              But I did not say it was a problem that it changes. I pointed out that it did indeed change and for some reason people get triggered by that.

              • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean people are ‘triggered’ mostly by intentional asshattery. A 60yo coworker was talking to me about his trans (mtf) daughter yesterday and had the pronouns all fucked up, but it was obvious he loves his kid and wants what’s best for her. I think most people would give him some leeway. Going to a place very obviously over-represented by trans people and doing it makes it seem sort of intentional.

                  • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s a situation where people won’t be triggered by language vs the people here trying to bait people. If you can’t see the relevance I don’t think I can lead you there.

          • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except the person argued about what IS fine, not what WAS considered fine in the past. The person is literally arguing that we ought to be able to misgender people. They claim it is morally righteous to misgender trans people. Their reasoning is that people are only labeling misgendering as hate speech because they disagree with it, not because it is actually hate speech.

            I provided good reasons as to why misgendering and promoting the conservative gender ideology that causes it is harmful, debunking their argument that the perspective is being labeled only due to disagreement. Let’s look back at their original argument.

            That’s all fine and dandy until people change the definition of those words to suit their needs. Then all speech they disagree with is hate speech. Which has already happened.

            The argument that hate speech laws could be used frivolously to silence those who disagree is a valid hypothetical concern. Where this person fucks up is by claiming things are already being labeled as hate speech even when they aren’t. This is suspect because there aren’t many places that seriously outlaw hate speech, and most of those places have yet to overstep the law in any real way.

            In places like the US where people are at best, socially shunned for hate speech, it’s uncommon for people to falsely claim bigotry on a large scale. Usually when a false claim is made, the falsehood is in the description of events, not the moral principle being applied to.

            When another poster pushes back, the person claims the conservative gender ideology isn’t hateful and is deemed as such because people disagree with it, and argument I showed to be lacking. It is hateful because it inherently promotes hate and discrimination. You’re trying to run interference for the poster by misunderstanding the moral principle that they appealed to.

            They did not appeal to the idea that words get changed to make you look wrong for using the old definition. This would be like if “to flame” was understood to mean criticize, but everyone forgot that usage and then you said “we should flame that guy.” You meant something reasonable but people didn’t understand you. That’s what you claim is the problem when you say:

            People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.

            The poster claimed that the old definition is actually good and should still be used. I pointed out how that the old definition is problematic, even by the logic of the past. It excludes and includes people it shouldn’t which results in real harm. I laid out the real harm done by those definitions, allowing the poster to make an informed decision on whether to still hold that definition. If they still choose to insist on that old definition that harms a group of people for characteristics they didn’t choose, then they are a bigot. Harming a group for innate characteristics is bigotry.

            TLDR: You ironically moved the goalposts and misunderstood what the poster was arguing. I did not prove them right in any way.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This is ridiculous, really. It does feel as if you were bots going aggressively off on a tangent with no connection to the content or context.

              Or you are simply unwilling/unable to make a distinction between different levels of communication.

              Do you agree that sometimes things were fine to say in the past and now they are considered hate speech? That was the topic of the discussion.

              To prevent you and others from getting caught up in and endless loop of being triggered, I will provide another example instead: In the past it was okay to address a woman as “Fräulein X” when she was unmarried. And as “Frau X” when she was married (in German). No one cared about that, now, many people will considered it rude an bigoted and call you a sexist when doing it anyway.

              Now that I think about it I feel it’s actually quite easy to find a few examples, and the question to the original poster to provide an example was seemingly just bait so you all can get enraged for a bit. And everyone who didn’t participate in the overall outrage, you generously consider and treat as a bigot you have to correct as well.

              • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Do you agree that sometimes things were fine to say in the past and now they are considered hate speech? That was the topic of the discussion.

                That wasn’t the topic of discussion. This was my entire point. You’re the one who changed the argument into something it wasn’t. The person claimed things were being labeled as hate speech ONLY because people disagreed with them. They were not arguing that things were simply rendered offensive. They argued that things were WRONGLY rendered hate speech to silence good arguments.

                We were not going off on a tangent, you are.

                What I don’t know for certain is whether or not you’re trying to defend bigotry, or if you just didn’t understand the discussion. I suspect it’s a bit of both. You saw this person having their bigotry getting revealed, and then due to enlightened centrism brainrot, you changed the argument in your head into something that was reasonable. This was done to maintain your worldview that the larger trans/hate speech debate is fought between two sides that have reasonable concerns.

                The fact is, in this debate, one side is just morally wrong. The rejection of trans people will cause material harm to vulnerable people, while accepting trans people will cause almost no real harm to anyone. It can be reasonably argued that hate speech laws could be weaponized against the people they were supposed to protect, but no one here made those arguments effectively. In fact, most of the time this argument isn’t made effectively, because the people using the argument are really just in favor of hate speech.

                You tried to misrepresent someone’s bad argument, not shift to what could have been a good argument.

                • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  This is my post you reacted to:

                  You did prove them right, though. It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech. So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.

                  Now quote to me please where I, in my post to which you reacted, tried to defend bigotry.

                  Especially in which form I said something so bigoted, that it’s okay to call me an asshole, someone with brainrot, a transphobe and someone who defends hate speech.

                  You assume all kinds of things about me, from a simple post. And fall into hateful rhetoric simply for me not jumping when everyone was supposed to jump, apparently.

                  It’s almost as if this was bait to get someone to say anything you can deliberately get outraged by to then start hurling insults. No matter discussing in good faith or perhaps asking back first. No, you immediately assumed I was a bigot with “centrism brainrot”.

                  • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Ok, I’ll show you where you defend bigotry. You defend it by trying to misrepresent a bigoted argument as I stated before. You call into question whether or not the argument is bigoted:

                    It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech. So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.

                    The phrase, “People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.” States that a person is treated as a bigot, not that they are a bigot. You refocus the person called a “bigot” as the victim.

                    Worse still, you state that they are called a bigot for simply not using new definitions. The issue isn’t so much that they don’t use new definitions, it’s that they use definitions that justify and reinforce bigotry. They use harmful and hateful definitions, and are thus doing bigoted things. I tried not to essentialize them as a bigot, but I did point out how using that definition is bigoted.

                    A person said something bigoted, I pointed out why it was bigoted. In that original response I didn’t even call them a bigot. I said they were helping bigots by using that argument.

                    I have also not called you a bigot, just speculated on what you may think. I didn’t even speculate that you’re a bigot, just that you are wrong. If you think I used “hateful rhetoric” by saying you had brainrot, I’m not sorry. People getting called out for defending harmful arguments in the milquetoast way I did isn’t something to be ashamed of.

                    You keep positioning people who make or defend harmful arguments as the victim, and I frankly have no more time for it. The victims are the people harmed by these arguments, not the people who get rightly criticized for perpetuating it. I care more about the thousands of trans people who are getting denied lifesaving treatment because of anti trans laws. I care more about the people who get bullied or murdered for being queer. I don’t think you getting downvoted and feeling guilty matters compared to the real harmful ideas you’re protecting.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, so when someone transitions from woman to man and have a penis grafted on them, it makes them a man? Good on you to be so progressive.

        • random65837@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Its doesnt “make” them a man, they ARE a man. I could care less if people want to switch sides, but pretending you’re no longer what your biology dictates is stupid.

          If theyre a women, go get pregnant and carry a child to term, when I see that, theyre a woman.

          Its not about politics, its not about religion, its about biological fact and commom sense.

          Being “progressive” doesnt include ignorance of reality.

          • MyFairJulia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well… Guess a lot women turn out to be men. We didn’t see them carry a child. Perhaps they will carry a child at some point, perhaps they won’t. But until then you can’t trust a single woman to be a woman until they have born a child in front of you.

            You may want to get used to the idea that you’ve been attracted to men all along. I can help you with your coming out.

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Today I learned infertile women are men. Women without children are men. Women who adopted but didn’t get pregnant and carry their children are men. Got it.

            See how it’s not that cut and dry?

          • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is a difference between biological sex (male/female) and social gender (man/woman). Feel free to make this the hill you die on, if you’d like. My hill is the left fawning over tolerance for Islam without understanding that it’s an exclusivist fundamentalist proselytizing religion that has no sizeable liberal movements. There is no version of Islam that is like the Unitarians, UCC, etc where the holy book is understood to be a product of its times. Sufism is close insofar as their mysticism makes them chill, but they’re not universalists. I have no desire to import proselytizing religionists of any culture or creed, and certainly no tolerance for the same.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            What the hell planet have you been living on? Its done constantly.

            maybe you should stop watching conservative media, for example ditch Joe Rogan as a start.

              • orrk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                what are you talking about, he is platforming and agreeing with everyone from the arch-conservatives all the way to the alt-right retards in the last few months.

                • random65837@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  He also agrees with a ton on the left, which is why I said Libertarian. If you actually listen to him it’s pretty impossible to miss he’s fiscally and constitutionally conservative and pretty damn liberal socially.

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a definition dispute, not biological. Mostly anyway. I could have this conversation with a lot of people and it wouldn’t be any sort of hate speech, but it’s pretty obvious what you’re about here.