• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

arthwollipot said:
No, you do not have the discretion to address a person however you want - or rather, if you address them in a way that they do not like, they have the discretion to punch you in the face.
Click to expand...

they also have the discretion to not address them at all. like the example earlier about the friend who got off on it. like, you don't have to be their friend, you don't ever have to talk to them or about them at all.

i really don't understand this idea that you can address whoever you want however you want and nobody can say boo about it. that's a wild expectation.
 
Sherkeu said:
Are you joking? or are you actually saying discretion to my right to free speech as to what I am comfortable speaking might involve violence to my female body?
Click to expand...

Or even your male body. As dirtywick said, free speech doesn't mean you get to talk to anybody however you feel like and they don't get to respond however they feel like. It's got to be on both sides or it's not free.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Or even your male body. As dirtywick said, free speech doesn't mean you get to talk to anybody however you feel like and they don't get to respond however they feel like. It's got to be on both sides or it's not free.
Click to expand...

"Talk" and "punch in the face" are not equivalent.
 
Sherkeu said:
Are you joking? or are you actually saying discretion to my right to free speech as to what I am comfortable speaking might involve violence to my female body?
Click to expand...

Apparently "Using wrong pronouns= violence??" equally means violence against people who are using said pronouns.
 
Due to the holiday the rush order of pearls to clutch has been delayed. But don't worry, it'll arrive tomorrow and everyone can be shocked (SHOCKED!) that someone typed "punch in the face", oh my god, think of the children, well I never, thoughts and prayers, etc.
 
Sherkeu said:
Are you joking? or are you actually saying discretion to my right to free speech as to what I am comfortable speaking might involve violence to my female body?
Click to expand...
I was speaking off the cuff, and glibly. The point is that free speech has limits.

If you deliberately and repeatedly misgender someone, then that could be considered harassment. There are a variety of possible consequences to that.
 
Steve said:
In the USA physical violence seems to be a standard and acceptable method of dealing with problems. Perhaps this is taking hold in Australia too.
Click to expand...

Knowing his posting history and stances on violence in general, along with the 'verbal violence' theme of the thread, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the word 'verbally' was missing from the sentence. That is to say, 'verbally punch you in the face', which is in line with the responses he has indicated are appropriate. I'd parse that as using a rude name in response to the rude pronoun misuse. I'm sure Arth will let us know.

People are well within their rights to make their displeasure of misgendering known, think poorly of people who do it known, and convince others to likewise think badly of those insisting on doing it.
 
arthwollipot said:
I see no substantial difference between repeatedly using the wrong pronoun for someone and repeatedly using the wrong name for someone.
Click to expand...


And let's not forget that it's long been a bullying tactic for the bullies - kids especially, but not exclusively - to deliberately & repeatedly misgender cisgender people. For example, a group of girls/boys deciding to refer to a particular girl with slightly masculine features as "he/him/boy/etc", and vice versa. That's clearly designed to be hurtful and is clearly (to normal people) wrong.

I wonder if the "no to compelled speech" evangelists in this thread and elsewhere think that they should have the consequence-free right to engage in the sort of behaviour I describe above? "You can't compel me to refer to this young biological female as "she/her" - if I want to use "he/him" to refer to this person, I'll bloody well do just that!" :rolleyes:
 
arthwollipot said:
I see no substantial difference between repeatedly using the wrong pronoun for someone and repeatedly using the wrong name for someone.
Click to expand...
Agreed; it is fine to use someone's correct (legal) name even if they insist on a pen name, stage name, or nom de guerre.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, you do not have the discretion to address a person however you want - or rather, if you address them in a way that they do not like, they have the discretion to punch you in the face.
Click to expand...
Cool, cool. Just so I make sure I understand, this means that when someone refers to me as "cis" I can punch them in the face. Or you know, when someone calls me a TERF or a transphobe I get to punch them in the face.

Why on earth do you think this is a good idea? Why would you advocate for violence in response to non-preferred language?
 
arthwollipot said:
I was speaking off the cuff, and glibly. The point is that free speech has limits.

If you deliberately and repeatedly misgender someone, then that could be considered harassment. There are a variety of possible consequences to that.
Click to expand...

I think this is a ******** argument, wolli.

People get repeatedly and deliberately called all sorts of things they don't like. Some of us get repeatedly and deliberately called things we've specifically asked NOT to be called pretty regularly. This kind of thing happens frequently. For some people, it's a daily occurrence.

You're singling out one very specific cohort of people, and you're demanding that those people get a special privilege - the privilege to demand that other people's free speech be removed or limited in deference to their feelings.

If you want to take the approach that nobody is ever allowed to use any language that hurts someone else's feelings, I would think it was silly, but it would be consistent.

But this? This is not consistent, nor is it rational. It's granting special a small group of people the special privilege of overriding other people's rights based on their feelings.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think this is a ******** argument, wolli.

People get repeatedly and deliberately called all sorts of things they don't like. Some of us get repeatedly and deliberately called things we've specifically asked NOT to be called pretty regularly. This kind of thing happens frequently. For some people, it's a daily occurrence.

You're singling out one very specific cohort of people, and you're demanding that those people get a special privilege - the privilege to demand that other people's free speech be removed or limited in deference to their feelings.

If you want to take the approach that nobody is ever allowed to use any language that hurts someone else's feelings, I would think it was silly, but it would be consistent.

But this? This is not consistent, nor is it rational. It's granting special a small group of people the special privilege of overriding other people's rights based on their feelings.
Click to expand...

Do you feel that way about stricter taboos (and sometimes legal consequences) on racially or religiously motivated harassment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom