https://www.techdirt.com/2021/07/28/ftc-is-driving-away-good-economists-favor-political-henchmen/ Why do you [i.e., Techdirt]?
Given how woke ideologues now talk about "equity" instead of "equality", it should be clear that one person's idea of equality is another person's definition of unfairness. It's the old equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome debate; woke ideologues seem to idolize Harrison Bergeron.
It is a problem if enough people believe it is a problem. It is enforceable to the extent that people are willing to devote resources to enforcing it. Woke gender ideologues, in places where they have power, force schools and teachers to lie to parents about the gender delusion and confusion children express in schools. The existence of physically intersex people is irrelevant. Those people can get tested medically to determine what sex they are. But woke gender ideologues would squeal in outrage if such testing were a requirement for any sort of trans identity.
We have religious, social, and cultural taboos regarding single-sex spaces, especially where nudity may be involved. Woke gender ideologues should not be permitted to force people of the wrong sex into those spaces without the consent of the people already there. Woke gender ideology is false. Men cannot be turned into women or vice versa. There is not such thing as a male mind or a female mind. No one can "know" themselves as a sex other than that of their body, not least because no one has access to any other mind but their own. We should not permit falsehood to be taught as truth by public institutions, nor to have those institutions compel people to affirm lies as truth, explicitly or implicitly (sex "assigned" at birth, for example). So my "obsession" is twofold. No riding roughshod over people's beliefs and customs, and no lies affirmed as truths. You may have bought into these lies so wholeheartedly that you cannot see how false they are, but that does not compel anyone else to believe we you do.
She is not a rape survivor. She is a rape victim. "Survivor" is a term used for those who had a better outcome from some bad situation than others. There were survivors from the Titanic because we other people died. There are survivors of mass shootings. There are survivors of difficult exams that other people fail Orwellian redefinition of words should be be resisted.
https://nyti.ms/3MwmLXK The NY Times has also noticed the erasure of women from woke ideology.
As I have explained before, rights are simply the people with a force monopoly voluntarily restricting their actions because they think such restrictions make for a better society. Such restrictions are arbitrary, and hence we had "all men are created equal" coexisting with slavery. Trans men and women are delusional but have every right to exist in my world. They do not, or rather should not, have the right to compel others to affirm their beliefs or to force their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them.
Woke gender ideology is false. That does not mean that trans people need to be driven off of social media. Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, and Vishnu do not exist, but that does not mean that religious people need to be driven off of social media. The only things are that they cannot compel people to accept their lies, and they cannot silence those who are telling the truth.
Sure. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/16/supreme-court-finance-regulation-ted-cruz-00032692
And when they're the primary platforms that people want to use to speak, they should not be surprised when the people's government takes a dim view of viewpoint-based discrimination and seeks to do something about it. The constitution can be worked around, as any liberal pushing for "common-sense him laws" is willing to tell you.
Just because there isn't a sharp dividing line between speech that should be banned because it contributes nothing but noise and offense, and speech that should be allowed because it contains legitimate ideas even though others vehemently disagree with them, does not mean that allowing all of the latter requires allowing all of the former. The huge platforms should be supporting the free speech of their users, not engaging in viewpoint-based censorship. That doesn't mean that they can't also moderate away spam and real (as opposed to woke) harassment and bigotry.
I was waiting for the right time to post this link: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/01/bbc-altered-gender-in-trans-rape-claim/ This is a case where woke gender ideology has gone from being just stupidly false to perniciously poisonous and evil. a young lesbian woman felt pressured to go out with a transwoman and went home with him. When she saw his penis and wouldn't have sex with him, he forcibly raped her. The BBC changed her story, changing the pronouns of the rapist from "he" to "they" do as not to "misgender" him.
People like you use the 1st Amendment as a shield to accomplish the censorship that you want by outsourcing that censorship to companies to which the 1st doesn't apply. Who do you hate freedom of speech?
And the government can pass antitrust laws that the companies don't like. Governments have the right to do that. Just as Facebook likes to give community-standards time-outs, the government can position its laws to nudge companies to behave properly without overtly saying so.
The big platforms should not be engaging in viewpoint-based censorship except when they are speaking for themselves. They should not be deciding what is hate speech, what is bigotry, or what is disinformation when they are acting as platform hosts for hundreds of millions of users. If these bills wind up punishing the companies for doing that, good.
No one is being convicted solely on the basis of lyrics and essays. But "flavor" is not nothing. It can show advance planning, or lack of remorse, for example.
Singing a confession isn't any different from speaking one. If the state wants to claim that the lyrics are a true representation of what the defendants did, that's fine. If the accused want to say that the lyrics are fictional or exaggerated, that's also fine. That's what we have trials. The jury gets to decide the facts
You are correct that I disbelieve that science has proven the claims of woke gender ideology. If I live long enough and the science stands the test of time, I'll change my mind then. For now, I believe that woke gender ideology is false, and therefore no amount of dignity or harm reduction or anything like that is going to get me to affirm those beliefs. I expect trans people and woke gender ideologues to live their lives unconcerned with what I think of them, as they should. As for single-sex taboos, it is not that I particularly care about them, or about women. It is merely that people who hold a false and delusional ideology do not get to impose their beliefs on people who don't share them. That's what living in a free society means. You get to be crazy in your own way, but you can't push your crazy on other people. They've got their own crazy to deal with
Forcing someone to host speech violates their freedom of speech. Stopping someone from speaking violates their freedom of speech. Ideally, the proposed host would voluntarily allow everyone to speak without viewpoint-based censorship, and then no one's freedom of speech is violated.
Whether real women will have control over their spaces is one battle in the culture wars. Your are welcome to try to wrest that control away, and you will be fought.