all 50 comments

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn’t technically fit under the legal definitions of compelled or free speech. Imo it’s closer to a total social acceptance of encouraging or engaging in violence towards women.

A man can no longer brag about “correcting” his wife or girlfriend or his female child. A man can brag about “correcting” some uppity bitch who said his dress and hating his penis does not make him a woman.

Laws are coming in in loads of countries regarding male access to female rights, but the speech comes from good old fashioned hatred of women. It’s socially sanctioned misogyny now that violence against family is recognised as shameful.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

It’s sometimes really hard for me to believe that people really have to be worried about losing their jobs for saying the truth. Someone else brought up racism- there’s such a drastic difference between someone saying something racist and someone literally just stating a fact. I do think a racist should lose their job if it gets out that they are a racist. I don’t think someone who understands biology should fear being fired and ostracized because acknowledging the truth may hurt the feelings of someone who can’t accept reality.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

The racists agree with you- they’re just stating the “facts” as they see them as well

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I’m sorry, what “facts” are racists stating? And can you cite the proof behind those facts?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

I’m saying neither of you have facts

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

I’m saying sex and biology are facts. Proven facts. You rejecting or being unable to accept that proof doesn’t negate the existence of the proof. Racist stereotypes and hatred for other races based on assumptions or generalizations aren’t facts so what you’re saying doesn’t really work. There’s a difference between someone saying “all black people are violent and lazy” and someone saying “women are biologically female” If someone said “women are biologically female so kill all males who claim to be women” you’d have a point- but that’s not what (most) people are saying, the people who do actually threaten violence should be reprimanded- not for acknowledging that males can’t be women, but for advocating violence against those males. you’re equating stating biological truths with hate speech and that’s just nonsensical

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 8 fun1 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 8 fun -  (10 children)

Except they aren’t biological truths but merely systems of subjective classification that are outdated at this point as the sex spectrum model far describes things in a far more neutral and stronger unbiased way.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

So how are babies made? Or do you mean categorising the sexes of a sexually reproducing species is biological truth?

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Babies are a social construct.... DUH!!!!!!

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Biologists agree it’s a stork flying babies into a cabbage patch

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Stop Pinocchio erasure. Also, the Power Puff Girls were made with sugar and spice, everything nice, and oops! CHEMICAL X

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That just not true, "sex spectrum" model solves nothing and just othering intersex people like myself, and hurting intersex youth. Sex spectrum is saying that I am less female and more male or that I am "other, third sex". There only 0.2% of intersex people and only around 1-1.5% of intersex people are trans, so "sex is a spectrum" does not help to transgender people at all (as almost all of them are unambigiously male or female - both physiologically and raised socially as such), but hurts intersex people a lot.

Binary sex is much better, because it is saying that every variation is equally valid, that I am same female as any other female, not "less on spectrum scale". Plus - why use for humans different scale and classification than to every other creature on Earth? Humans being special and above nature sounds like religious belief, tbh.

Second reason why "spectrum" is not solving anything, is because in every single case where sex matters - matters real sex and not "where on scale" it is and not "what gender you are". With my condition (SW CAH), after I was born, if I don't receive correct male or female treatment (they different) - I would die. And later in life I need to receive special treatment based on my sex, or I will get sick and die. And complications are different for each sex, so doctors must know what to expect as well (like I got "Secondary PCOS" - not sure why it called like this in English, and I need to take birth control pills to normalize hormonal levels and periods, but males would have different complicationsm like low fertility sperm, etc, and they will need to take different medicine). For transgender people sex matters a lot, because majority of health issues and treatment they must receive are sex based as well (as even with body alterations, majority of their bodies are still works as their birth sex, not as their prefered gender). And not aknowledging it can be deadly, I know one transwoman died by insisting on receiving same treatment as females, and there a bunch of cases when transmen risked their lives by writing their sex as "male" - as example here. Division by sex is very important in healthcare, sports, safeguarding, safe spaces, some statistics, feminism, shelters, parental rights and some other topics. And "spectrum" not works in any of those situations, because "less male on spectrum" is still male and have typical male body structure and parts where it matters, even if some other parts of their body are a-typical.

In every single other situation sex (and gender) should not matter AT ALL, because if it matters - it is called sexism. Treatment of issues and of people should be the very same regardles of their sex (or gender) everywhere but in few topics named above, where sex matters.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Says 1% lol. You can’t prove what you claim. You’ve never been able to prove what you claim. So I don’t think that people should be forced to go along with pseudoscience that can’t be proven. There’s more evidence to back up gc claims than there is to back up yours. If trans people and their allies can spread obvious falsehoods for the sake of gender identity and not be reprimanded, people who speak facts shouldn’t be either.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can’t claim something is outdated of it still works for everyone. Trans people exist because of the very thing you call outdated. People who call themselves non binary but happen to be parents became parents through the very thing you call outdated. If a trans person is able to become a parent (be it biologically, through adoption, or through those weird transplant surgeries you all tell yourself will one day work) it will be due to the very thing you call outdated. Even the intersex conditions you’re exploiting- those people were born because of the binary that exists! You exist, and are able to type things and call things outdated because of the very thing you call outdated. The binary that exists it what so many trans people based their fucking sense of identity on, for fucks sake. Literally humans and existence- even for none humans, depends on the very thing you call outdated. You don’t make sense. You never make sense. You can never prove or back up anything, it’s like you think if you just keep saying the same shit over and over again it will somehow be true- but the only reason you’re even here to say it over and over again is because it’s NOT true

[–]panorama 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Wow. Now that's uncalled for! There is a generation gap here for certain.

I asked why the user holds the opinions that a person should lose their job

if it gets out that they are a racist. That phrasing struck me.

Hey, it's your future. I'm just trying to understand the perspective that one should lose their income a/o social standing, for words, for opinions - not actions. I assume not even expressed on the job. IME, for most people, it used to take an arrest or altercation to get fired. I don't have kids and am unfamiliar with the FIRE THEM mindset I've seen from some genderist activists and some others of the generations after my own.

And FYI that incident happened 60 years ago. Society changes.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can I ask, if a police officer has social media, and their bios say “death to n***ers” or something with that sentiment, you have no problem with him/her being a police officer? He/she doesn’t get to choose what cases they work or what calls they respond to, so what happens when someone who thinks “death to black people” is sent to the home of a black person? What do you think would happen if the black person called, and the perpetrator was white? You really think that someone who has disregarded the lives of black people would come to their defense? We already have seen what covert racist cops have done to poc, now you’re saying they should be free to be open about it, as long as they don’t get caught causing harm? It used to be acceptable to be openly racist- there’s a reason that’s not the case anymore. The KKK didn’t always wear hoods.

The “if it gets out that they are racist” was put there because we can’t and shouldn’t just assume someone is racist, we can only know it when we’re shown it.

[–]panorama 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

I do think a racist should lose their job if it gets out that they are a racist.

May I ask you why you think this? (deleted irrelevant TMI) Edit. I'm not trying to derail conversation, I just wonder why lovesloane has the opinion expressed to consider in addition to any further contributions on this post by the user. Nevermind

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Racism is racism. The entire race wasn’t responsible for what happened to this man. The people who caused him harm, and only those people, were. This is incredibly ignorant but I hope it made you feel good to type out lol

There are no facts to back up racism. And an open or outed racist can cause discomfort in a work place. Someone who understands biology isn’t the same as a racist. What’s intolerant and judgy is blaming an entire race for one group’s behavior. All people of one race aren’t the same and don’t behave the same. Whoever you’re talking about is ignorant and racist as fuck and likely was well before anything happened- if anything indeed did happen.

Eta- for clarity, I responded to something that has since been deleted. What’s crossed out above was not the full text I responded to

[–]grixitperson 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Disagree. Being a racist is one thing and yes, people should not be fired for their thoughts and opinions. Acting on racism to hurt someone should be penalized just as hurting someone for other reasons should be. I do not believe there should be thoughtcrime.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Racist views work directly against people who aren't white, though. A racist is going to get in the way of these people being able to work and be treated normally, and further a racist and hostile environment. The severe damage of racism does not disappear just because the racist won't lynch a person.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

So it's OK to fire someone for racist speech but not transphobic speech?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why is ‘woman means adult human female’ transphobic? It doesn’t disparage transgender people, or encourage harm against them. It’s not a hateful or violent statement. It’s not even a statement about transgender people. Transgender people just disagree with it.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Transphobic speech is not acknowledging biological facts. Something that upsets trans people or that they disagree with is not automatically transphobic or hate speech. I will never understand how you don’t get this. I literally said if they said something hateful they should be reprimanded so idk where you’re getting this from? Not agreeing with trans ideology is not transphobia- it’s just disagreeing with trans ideology. And since qt and tras can not prove any of the things they say, I don’t think someone saying that trans women are not women should be fired. Unless they work at an lgbt center or something and they’ve agreed to support trans narratives and ideology. You’re basically saying anyone who doesn’t see the world as you do should be censored... again as I’ve said so many times, historically, the bad side does this, not the righteous.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you had a life or death medical emergency, and the only doctor who was able to treat you was openly gender critical, would you demand they be fired? Would you let yourself die rather than receiving life saving treatment from someone who disagrees with you? Even when your disagreement is irrelevant to the situation and didn’t prevent them being willing to operate on you?

Are Christians allowed to force everyone to go to church and tithe on Sundays, since they really truly believe in the gospel?

You cannot just act as if anything that isn’t what you believe is wrong and should be repressed. That’s how dictatorships are born. It’s dangerous and will inevitably become dangerous for you.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes he should have been fired

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry, OP, but you've phrased/put forward the issue of "free speech" here poorly.

Free speech/freedom of speech in the sense that governments cannot or should not censor speech is one thing.

The extent to which we all censor our own speech out of politeness, kindness, concern for the feelings of others, is another matter.

The question of whether employers and work colleagues should be allowed to control and censure the speech that employees utter/write/post online during non-working hours is a third issue.

[–]grixitperson 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You should not be fired for what you say outside of work.

[–]grixitperson 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's how a lot of gc people are getting fired.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Obligatory, not QT, but trans. I don’t think your definition of free speech makes sense. It’s not possible to ever make speech free from consequences. Obviously, I don’t think anyone should be fired for having gender critical views though.

[–]SilverSlippers 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think people should get fired for things they say outside of work as long as they aren't calling for violence or harassing other employees.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

No that’s not how free speech works. It only means that the government won’t try to suppress your speech. Your definition would allow racists to spout bigotry at their job with no consequences.

[–]pollyesther[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Where did I say racists should be allowed to spout bigotry at their job? I mean employees shouldn't be fired for speech outside of work that isn't related to their job.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

So if I say that all members of x racial group should die on Facebook I shouldn’t be fired? Is it okay if I espouse that view in confidence to someone and it gets leaked to the media should I not be fired?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Do you think that recognising that a woman is an adult human female is the same thing as believing that white people are a superior race?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This. That’s what I was about to say. They aren’t the same at all.

Eta- I’m guessing the people who think it’s should be okay to be known as a racist are not poc

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are they actually that comfy around racism or is it a really bad attempt to compare apples and terfs, hoping that people will think gender critical thinking is somehow the same as it equally repugnant as being racist?

Idk which it is but it stinks.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think it’s both. I think for gc, many non POC are comfortable around racists- it’s often their own family. They can excuse racism that’s only spoken (as far as they know) because it doesn’t effect them and many are unaware of their own racist views. And I think for qt they’re desperate to link or equate “terfs” with racism or a specific group despite ample evidence that “terfs” come in all races, religions, economic backgrounds and sexualities.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Dang I’ve gotta take a minute and think about the racism in my own family now.

You’re right about the qt approach. They seem to want to attach to any disadvantaged social group they can. I guess that’s how we end up with those grotty tweets saying ~if black women are women so are transwomen~.

It’s odd that there’s such an insistence that gc/radfem is a white thing, when QT transwomen are largely represented by middle class white men.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don’t mean to imply that all white people have some racism in them or are willing to accept racism in others. I know first hand that that’s not the case.

I think it’s funny that qt is so largely represented by white men but they complain so much about “cis white” men and women and assume that everyone who disagrees with them is a “cis” white person

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh no you didn’t imply that. I really do have racists in the family and it’s nearly Easter. Gonna be happening at dinner.

It’s middle and upper class white women ruining their lives, according to middle and upper class white men who claim to be women. The mental gymnastics that must be involved in missing something so obvious would be glorious to see firsthand.

[–]grixitperson 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

No, but both are private thoughts, which are different from actions.

[–]grixitperson 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You won't be fired if "x" means White. People of European descent are uniquely denied the ability to advocate for their own racial interests.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You sound like a racist. If someone said that on Facebook though I would be fine with them being fired

[–]cupidscupidity 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

There's a difference between the general concept of freedom of speech, and the right to freedom of speech as protected by the government. Yes, the government protecting freedom of speech "only" means that the government won't try to suppress your speech, but it's possible to support free speech outside of what's protected by the government, e.g. "freedom of speech in workplaces" or "freedom of speech on social media".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

In the government action sense sure, but if someone is bigot, why should they be protected from private consequence when they choose to air that belief?