> Saying this does not convince people who are concerned about hate speech. Such individuals imagine that the government or the platform will, or can be coerced, to simply remove whatever they do not like. These folks, who consider themselves among the majority, never imagine that they will one day be a minority, or that such power will then be used against them.
Exactly. And it isn't even that difficult to imagine how it could happen: TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, want to shut out trans voices, and they do this by accusing trans people of engaging in misogynistic hate speech whenever they speak out about trans issues. How sincere the TERFs are doesn't matter, ultimately, as the result is the same: Trans people being shut up and shut out in the name of keeping misogyny off the platform, or even out of the country. In the words of Vox:
> TERF ideology has become the de facto face of feminism in the UK, helped along by media leadership from Rupert Murdoch and the Times of London. Any vague opposition to gender-critical thought in the UK brings along accusations of “silencing women” and a splashy feature or op-ed in a British national newspaper. Australian radical feminist Sheila Jeffreys went before the UK Parliament in March 2018 and declared that trans women are “parasites,” language that sounds an awful lot like Trump speaking about immigrants.
The "Defend Women" line is a perfect tactic for TERFs to use, and they use it early and often.
Again, claiming those people are cynically using feminism to fight a different battle is pointless: The fact they could use hate speech laws to silence a minority is the troubling thing.
> The "Defend Women" line is a perfect tactic for TERFs to use, and they use it early and often.
Yeah, it's wild. Meghan Murphy [1] has a lot of guests on who discuss this topic. Some of it is pretty eye opening because the issue is only briefly touched upon via established media, aside from right wing sources. I guess that just provides opportunity for independent journalists to grow by telling such stories. I never believed that other media would turn away stories based on ideology until I heard stories from child transitioners who later detransitioned. And I only got plugged into that by randomly reading commentary about Cloudflare blocking Kiwi Farms [2]. Anyway, it turns out that institutions, made up of humans, display human-like flaws. Who knew?
> The fact they could use hate speech laws to silence a minority is the troubling thing.
It is and it isn't. I think society largely agrees that, at least, most words are not violence. And while we do dip into pretty heavy censorship territory once in awhile, and it does breed a lot of distrust and hate, it also garners more support for free speech. It's clear to more and more every day that censorship, particularly the secretive censorship that pervades social media and IMO is the biggest issue which we should therefore tackle, does not work. Disinfo experts have been promising for years that just one more round of censorship and elections will finally, once and for all, kill off all hatred and discontent, just like people who claim AGI is just around the corner. It hasn't happened, it's not happening, and it's time to go back to our roots, free speech and counter speech.
> Australian radical feminist Sheila Jeffreys went before the UK Parliament in March 2018 and declared that trans women are "parasites," language that sounds an awful lot like Trump speaking about immigrants.
What she actually said was this:
"When men claim to be women [...] and parasitically occupy the bodies of the oppressed, they speak for the oppressed. They come to be recognised as the oppressed. There's no space for women's liberation."
She is using this metaphor to point out that once men declare themselves to be and are accepted as women, they benefit from all the rights that generations of women have fought for - all while curtailing the means for women to speak about themselves, their lives, and their concerns as women.
Which, as I'm sure you'll agree, is a reasonable feminist viewpoint.
Exactly. And it isn't even that difficult to imagine how it could happen: TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, want to shut out trans voices, and they do this by accusing trans people of engaging in misogynistic hate speech whenever they speak out about trans issues. How sincere the TERFs are doesn't matter, ultimately, as the result is the same: Trans people being shut up and shut out in the name of keeping misogyny off the platform, or even out of the country. In the words of Vox:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radic...
> TERF ideology has become the de facto face of feminism in the UK, helped along by media leadership from Rupert Murdoch and the Times of London. Any vague opposition to gender-critical thought in the UK brings along accusations of “silencing women” and a splashy feature or op-ed in a British national newspaper. Australian radical feminist Sheila Jeffreys went before the UK Parliament in March 2018 and declared that trans women are “parasites,” language that sounds an awful lot like Trump speaking about immigrants.
The "Defend Women" line is a perfect tactic for TERFs to use, and they use it early and often.
Again, claiming those people are cynically using feminism to fight a different battle is pointless: The fact they could use hate speech laws to silence a minority is the troubling thing.