Hate speech is never sound reasoning.
Well, yes, sometimes it is.
Furthermore, Rolfe's speech was not hate speech, unless there is some weird new definition of hate speech.
Or is that something to do with aporia apologetics, or something?
Ok, let me take a step back here. Welcome to the forum. It's easy enough to fit in, regardless of where your ideology stands. Let me catch you up on a thing of two.
Most of us here are pretty darned liberal. Even the Republicans are basically the liberatarian variety. Basically, hardly anyone here on ISF gives a hoot how you dress, who you have sex with, or even what pronouns you use.
So, our whole approach here isn't about pushing some sort of morality onto anyone else. Once in a while someone comes along to these fair shores and tries to push some religion, but it never works. Most of us aren't into that sort of thing.
On the other hand, we also don't buy into partisan agendas or ideologies. Some of us are pretty closely aligned, but we don't just echo a party line. We appreciate it when people thing for themselves and can explain the reason for their views, instead of just echoing some partisan talking points. If you happen to end up aligned with partisan talking points, that's ok, just be prepared to explain why, instead of citing a a party platform.
So, you have a guy like me who's pretty darned liberal, socially, but some years back, after being introduced to this topic, I decided that I would never force a woman, including a teenaged girl, to take off her clothes in front of a biological male. That includes forcing her to not use her locker room as that room was intended. i.e. No biological males in women's locker rooms. We can go into why not if you wish. It's been gone over and over many times, but that's ok. Each new perspective refines it a little bit and gives us a chance to deepen the explanations, and we can also talk about where there might be an exception. That's what a discussion board is for, so we don't mind explaining.
Many of us are also not keen on allowing biological males to compete in women's sports. Again, we can explain if you're interested. Its' what we do.
Other people have other areas where they aren't keen on allowing transwomen to be treated and accepted wholly as women, and different people have different levels of exceptions they are willing to make.
Other participants argue against those positions. That's fine. That's what we are here for. One line of argument is often. "I am a woman, therefore I should be able to participate in women's sports." Well, that's valid reasoning, but is it sound? To be sound, the premise has to be correct. So, "I am a woman" has to be justified. Is there a definition of "woman", which the person fits?
I grew up with a definition of "woman", which is "adult human female", and transwomen aren't that, so, obviously, there must be some other definition, but that's a really common point of discussion in these threads. I, and others who share some or all of my views, keep asking for definitions of woman which would include transwomen, and none are forthcoming.
So, some of what you are seeing is just references to common topics.
So, come on in, join in. Share your thoughts. I'm pretty sure we have seen something like them, but that's ok.
One final tip. Don't underestimate the crowd. There' some pretty smart folks here.
