# ...will the board consider explicit transphobia hate-speech? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 23, 2019, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204 "2019-10-23T23:18:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/201 "2019-10-28T14:54:11Z")
Anyway, to summarize the thread, it looks like the speech referred to by the OP isn’t going to be banned. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/202 "2019-10-28T14:57:01Z")
That doesn’t mean we have to give it a pass without debate. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/203 "2019-10-28T16:00:31Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > It’s unlikely that that would be considered hate speech any time in the near future. Unfortunate as it may be, the validity of trans identities is a major topic of political and social debate, and one of the functions of the SDMB is to provide a place for people to debate major issues of the day - which necessarily means we have to allow to contra position on the boards. This is generally why we only moderate outright slurs or calls for violence as hate speech, and tend not to moderate people for having unpalatable ideas, so long as they can slather at least a thin veneer of civility over it. This is pretty much where I’m at. But I will say that even without designating something as hate speech, there’s plenty of space to moderate if things become in our view uncivil. A gentle correction may apply in the case of the example in the OP, with instruction to modify behavior in various ways. Things will flow naturally from that. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/204 "2019-10-28T16:06:32Z")
> [@Calavera](#): > > Using the term “transman” for F to M is and “transwoman” for M to F is begging the question, and it’s unreasonable to complain when people who don’t see it that way accidentally or deliberately confuse the terms. > > It would have been better to use a more neutral, unabiguous term … > [@Irishman](#): > > Also, the _whole point_ is to address them how they want to be identified, not as they were or by some ambiguous term. And I should have said, if they really _wanted_ to beg the question, they’d drop the whole “trans” business and just call themselves “men” and “women”. Keeping the “trans” signifies there is a distinction relevant for some reasons, mostly personal. The point is their biology and identity aren’t in agreement. And it’s likely that their biology isn’t in agreement with itself (chromosomes vs gene expression, genital vs brain development, etc). Accept them for their _identity_, and let them worry about the physiology. As for intersex, I’m not informed enough on that topic to express an opinion, other than try to respect their chosen identity. In other words, the same thing as above. > [@SOJA](#): > > I’ll call people whatever they want to be called, but my opinion and one I keep to myself except having to explain myself here is that unless you’ve changed your chromosomes, you’re still biologically your birth gender. Surgery or and the use of drugs to help you feel who you believe you should have been deep inside is fine if it makes you happy. Don’t care what others think about you. > > I heavily side with science on many matters but I’ve never heard of something that changes every facet of biology which would include manipulating chromosome counts. I appreciate that you don’t think it’s any of your business and don’t go around dumping your opinion on people willy nilly. I, respectfully, think you are underinformed about the biological aspects. Sex expression is more than just XX or XY (and ignoring the special cases like XXY, etc). Gene expression is controlled by more than just the presence or absence of a gene. There is also [epigenetics](https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/what-is-epigenetics/) at play. [Epigenetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics) “is the study of heritable phenotype changes that do not involve alterations in the DNA sequence”. Briefly, many factors (such as environmental interaction with chemicals) affect which genes become active and which dormant. Physiological development involves stages of different hormones being triggered by different genes, each wave of hormones affecting the biological development of different parts of the anatomy. That’s what often leads to intersex people - one wave of development goes male and another goes female, for whatever reason. Thus, you get mixed genitalia. There is reason to think that gender identity may be affected by a biological underpinning of how the brain forms, due to influence from different hormones during development. This would be yet another round of different genes expressing differently during development, leading to one set controlling genitals and another brain state. So to say what someone is “biologically” is to overlook some of biology. What you’re really saying is you see visual development as more significant than identity. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/205 "2019-10-28T16:33:05Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > I would like to dissent. > > “Disorder”, like “illness”, specifically labels a difference as a wrongness. And a variation from the norm can be a superiority, or a qualitatively equal difference. MENSA does not position itself as a support group for sufferers of “hyperintelligence disorder”. I mean, we’re just disagreeing as to semantics. What word would you use to describe a mental/physiological abnormality that may itself be benign and natural but may also be correlated with negative effects? I would think _abnormality_ is even more disparaging than _disorder_. > [@AHunter3](#): > > And yes, some of us consider the normative gender identities to be pathological. You’ve encountered this if you were around for early 1970s feminism: the notion that what we regard as “femininity” and “masculinity” are twisted, corrupted, artificially imposed constraints upon who a person can and might be. Well, that’s the thing. It’s not a disease if almost everybody has it, and it’s not “pathological” if it’s not a disease. (my definition of “disease” also requires abnormality) In fact, the word I would use for a _disorder_ with negative effects is “disease”. > [@AHunter3](#): > > Politically, we don’t say so. First, because it’s biased and we know it (& those who don’t get pulled into place within MOGII / LGBTQ discussion groups). If we don’t appreciate being regarded as wrong, deviant, pathological just because we’re different, how much sense does it make for us to project that same attitude onto the majority? Secondly – more strategically – we want a “live and let live” environment. If the conventional gender identities aren’t particularly healthy for people, establishing accepted alternatives will give people a space into which to escape them; if they’re perfectly health and we’re just statistical outliers (and I’ve actually come to believe that), the majority of people born female will continue to see themselves in conventional feminine / woman identities and those born male will view themselves as men and manly and so forth – but the minority who don’t fit will have far happier lives as gender becomes _descriptive instead of prescriptive_, and we get included in the descriptions. Sound rationale if you ask me, assuming the goal is for people to be happy. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/206 "2019-10-28T17:16:05Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > [Great article on the topic](https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/10/28/sex-in-humans-may-not-be-binary-but-its-surely-bimodal/). Found it really padded out, confusing, etc., actually. Just get to the point and stop bringing up the “bimodal” aspect as a key point. So, maybe 2% of the population doesn’t “fit” into the simplistic picture. You can either accept that there’s a “none of the above” check box or you can make the lives of those 2% a living hell. Making the lives of others hell just because they don’t “fit” seems to be jerk behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/207 "2019-10-28T17:31:47Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Of course it is. It’s explicitly denying them and their opinion any validity or reality. _Usually_, that is the case. But it is not always the case. A person makes a claim about themselves and a group they belong to. I disagree. Surely there are some situations where I can voice my disagreement, no matter the subject area, without being disrespectful? For example, I might explain why I (respectfully) disagree during a civil debate about the validity of that very claim. I concede that they have an opinion, and that the claim matches reality and is valid _in their opinion_. My dissenting argument is that their opinion is wrong. No disrespect. Depending on the debate, I might even concede that they and their opinion exist - but that’s not _necessarily_ a prerequisite to a respectful debate. > [@Kobal2](#): > > I just came across a really good parallel for this, in fact : in our society it is allowed and even somewhat common for couples to adopt children, for various reasons. When they do so, we call those couples “parents” and the kids “their children” and all of society considers them a normal family ; functionally equivalent to any other even though technically and scientifically speaking these people bear no kindred relationship with each other whatsoever. > > Adopted children call their adoptive parents “mom” and “dad” and nobody tells them they’re wrong - sure, there’s an entire genre of fiction that deals with coming to terms with the notion or big reveal that one is adopted and ultimately the realization that non-bio parents are more parents than some stranger who did the sex thing at some point ; and there are some medical contexts where positively identifying oneself as “adopted” or “adoptive” is helpful - but the point is that in 99% of cases and life experiences there is no meaningful or material difference between a bio family and a family with adopted kids. > And a person who would follow adopted people around and “helpfully” correct them whenever they talk about their mums and dads ; or adoptive parents talking about their children ; would rightly be considered **an unbelievable jerk**. You have to realize that there is at least one place where it may appropriate to correct people who refer to their adoptive parents as “mum” or “dad”: during a debate over whether to call adoptive parents “mum” or “dad”. This person you mention isn’t a jerk because he or she disagrees with adoptees. Neither does a person _necessarily_ become a jerk because he or she tells adoptees not to call their foster parents “mum” and “dad”. The person becomes a jerk because he or she tells adoptees how to address their foster parents at a time and place where it is absolutely inappropriate to do so. To then “follow adopted people around” and repeatedly do so only makes him or her even more of a jerk. This goes for any disagreement, by the way. > [@Kobal2](#): > > But it _does_, is what they’re trying to tell you. It’s not an if. [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21938886&postcount=165) is something that cropped up in a thread about Donald Trump of all things - and prompted me to come complain here, which is why I’m in this here thread : > > This is fucking hateful. Yes, it’s in the Pit, and people are allowed to be mad and use bad language in the pit. But yeah, no, this is the language of hate, period. This is on the spectrum of _blood libel_. And it is fucking unbelievable to me, a cis white het dude whose only irl social connection to the trans community is on the level of “I once clocked a trans girl in the subway”, that \*\*Annoyed \*\*is still here and hasn’t even received so much as a fucking warning over this heinous shit. I can’t even imagine the kind of emotional minefield trans folk must live in that this sort of comments can spring up anywhere they read, about any subject, on any part of the internet that’s not strictly and explicitly respectful towards them. I personally think **Annoyed** ’s comment is reprehensible, off-topic, fallacious, and disparaging of a protected class (people who have undergone sex reassignment surgery). But in **Annoyed** ’s defense, the gist of the post is that sex reassignment surgery (especially of children) is _immoral_. It is disparaging to imply that transgender people who have undergone SRS are immoral, but I wouldn’t call that hate speech. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/208 "2019-10-28T17:43:04Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > The difference? Their beliefs aren’t mainstream _at this point in time_. For the record, whether an arbitrary number of people hold an opinion or not has no bearing on whether _I_ consider it to be hate speech. ETA: Excepting the definition of hate speech ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/209 "2019-10-28T17:49:08Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > It is disparaging to imply that transgender people who have undergone SRS are immoral, but I wouldn’t call that hate speech. > > ~Max To make it hate speech, there would need to be some hateful element, some sort of verbal attack of their person. For example, “therefore, they aren’t people/they are lesser beings” or “and immoral people should be [insert harmful act]”. I do not consider an attack on someone’s beliefs - religion, gender identity, racial affiliation, nationality - to be an attack of their person. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/210 "2019-10-28T18:39:09Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Depending on the debate, I might even concede that they and their opinion exist Well that’s fucking gracious of you m’lord ;). But how do you propose debating at all, much less with respect, if you _a priori_ posit that the other person’s opinion does not, in fact, exist (and they are, in effect, unpersons) ? Beyond that, and out of basic civility regardless of your personal Views ; if someone tells you they’d really rather you call them John and you keep purposefully calling them Max, you’re being a jerk. No ifs, ands or buts. > [@](#): > > You have to realize that there is at least one place where it may appropriate to correct people who refer to their adoptive parents as “mum” or “dad”: during a debate over whether to call adoptive parents “mum” or “dad”. Yes. And I did specify there were some specific (and rather limited) contexts in which the precision matters or even clarifies what is being talked about. In the overwhelming majority of contexts, however, nobody will, nor should, pry about something that’s personal and private and doesn’t concern you in any way nor is meaningful wrt what “a family” is or is represented as. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/211 "2019-10-28T18:54:43Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I mean, we’re just disagreeing as to semantics. Yeah, I know. It’s a perennial problem: a word with an innocent-enough _denotation_ becomes polluted with the _connotations_ that become embedded by the attitudes of the many biased people who express themselves using originally neutral terms. See: “deviance”. I’d wince at “deviant”, the same as those other terms, and yet I do realize it merely meant “to deviate”, and yeah we deviate from the norm. But see also the proverbial “N-word”, about as loaded a pejorative as can be conjured up in the English language. It is a badly Anglicized pronunciation of a Spanish word meaning “black” – BLACK Is its original denotation, the pejorative functions being due to the connotations given to it over time. I would not suggest that you embark on using it to refer to the people who call themselves by the English language denotative equivalent. Semantics, and people’s feelings, do matter. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/212 "2019-10-28T19:02:02Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I personally think **Annoyed** ’s comment is reprehensible, off-topic, fallacious, and disparaging of a protected class (people who have undergone sex reassignment surgery). But in **Annoyed** ’s defense, the gist of the post is that sex reassignment surgery (especially of children) is _immoral_. It is disparaging to imply that transgender people who have undergone SRS are immoral, but I wouldn’t call that hate speech. > > ~Max _shrug_ I don’t really see the point in splitting hairs that razor fine. I just wish someone would get on with the reprehending already. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/213 "2019-10-28T21:22:51Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Well that’s fucking gracious of you m’lord ;). But how do you propose debating at all, much less with respect, if you _a priori_ posit that the other person’s opinion does not, in fact, exist (and they are, in effect, unpersons) ? It is possible to converse with one’s self, or with very complex machines, and that is how I would rationalizes human interaction if I followed a certain kind of solipsism. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Beyond that, and out of basic civility regardless of your personal Views ; if someone tells you they’d really rather you call them John and you keep purposefully calling them Max, you’re being a jerk. No ifs, ands or buts. > > > [@](#): > > > > You have to realize that there is at least one place where it may appropriate to correct people who refer to their adoptive parents as “mum” or “dad”: during a debate over whether to call adoptive parents “mum” or “dad”. > > Yes. And I did specify there were some specific (and rather limited) contexts in which the precision matters or even clarifies what is being talked about. In the overwhelming majority of contexts, however, nobody will, nor should, pry about something that’s personal and private and doesn’t concern you in any way nor is meaningful wrt what “a family” is or is represented as. These two paragraphs appear to contradict each other. First you write that intentional misidentification is never okay; then you admit that there are some specific (limited) contexts in which it is okay to essentially do just that. A thread on this forum could very well be the exception. But there are no exceptions to hate speech - if you classify something as hate speech, then under no circumstances should we the board permit it to go unpunished. Maybe you have a different understanding of hate speech than I do. What I am saying is that I could start a thread debating the validity of trans gender identity and do so respectfully, just as I could start a thread debating the validity of adopted children addressing their foster parents by “mum and dad”. An incredulous foster parent could jump in and ask, “how dare you tell me my children are wrong for calling me mommy!” And my response would be, “my opinion is no more worthy than your own, but I would be delighted if you could explain why you think that is a proper way to address a foster parent, because it seems inappropriate to me”. And she might respond, “A mother, a real mother, is the most wonderful person in the world. She’s the angel voice that bids you good night, kisses your cheek, whispers ‘sleep tight’…” I don’t want to make a thread like that, especially since I have no reason to dispute the validity of trans gender identities or motherhood, but I am interested in having a forum where that kind of thread can exist, provided that people try to have a civil debate. I take no pleasure in reading expletive-laced back and forth ad hominem attacks and recycled talking points. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/214 "2019-10-28T21:45:51Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Yeah, I know. It’s a perennial problem: a word with an innocent-enough _denotation_ becomes polluted with the _connotations_ that become embedded by the attitudes of the many biased people who express themselves using originally neutral terms. Okay, but I still need a way to express myself. I don’t carry political correctness so far as to prevent me from articulating my views; if my views are bigoted, there’s no amount of lipstick that can fix that. Attempting to do so only pushes the “neutral” terms down and down into the gutter. > [@AHunter3](#): > > See: “deviance”. I’d wince at “deviant”, the same as those other terms, and yet I do realize it merely meant “to deviate”, and yeah we deviate from the norm. Could you clarify, are you suggesting I start calling disorders “deviances”? You can’t see me behind this screen, but I’m wincing, too. > [@AHunter3](#): > > But see also the proverbial “N-word”, about as loaded a pejorative as can be conjured up in the English language. It is a badly Anglicized pronunciation of a Spanish word meaning “black” – BLACK Is its original denotation, the pejorative functions being due to the connotations given to it over time. > > I would not suggest that you embark on using it to refer to the people who call themselves by the English language denotative equivalent. Semantics, and people’s feelings, do matter. I wouldn’t compare “disorder” to the “N-word”. One is clearly worse than the other. Somebody who claims to use that word in its original eighteenth century sense is pulling your leg. More importantly, there are better words to use, like “black”. You will notice that sometimes “black” also has somewhat of a racist connotation. Nevertheless there are plenty of situations where no other word so concisely expresses the thoughts you want to express. There are some situations where no other word _can_ express the same concept - black does not always mean African American. And so “black” is still a part of our language. And so “disorder” is still part of my vernacular. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/215 "2019-10-28T22:51:04Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Go. Away. All right. Three direct and unsupported attacks crosses into the realm of harassment. Feel free to open a thread in The BBQ Pit, but refrain from this sort of personal attack in a non-Pit thread. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Annoyed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f04885/32.png) [@Annoyed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annoyed)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/216 "2019-10-29T01:02:55Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I personally think **Annoyed** ’s comment is reprehensible, off-topic, fallacious, and disparaging of a protected class (people who have undergone sex reassignment surgery). But in **Annoyed** ’s defense, the gist of the post is that sex reassignment surgery (especially of children) is _immoral_. It is disparaging to imply that transgender people who have undergone SRS are immoral, but I wouldn’t call that hate speech. > > ~Max Because its not hate speech. Offensive speech, sure. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/217 "2019-10-29T01:19:24Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I’d provide a cite of people being arrested over speech but I know you have google and can do your own homework l \*Hate \*speech or \*threatening \*speech? There’s a distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Annoyed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f04885/32.png) [@Annoyed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annoyed)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/218 "2019-10-29T01:28:23Z")
There is no such thing as hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/219 "2019-10-29T01:34:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > \*Hate \*speech or \*threatening \*speech? There’s a distinction. What is the distinction? ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/220 "2019-10-29T01:57:28Z")
> [@Annoyed](#): > > There is no such thing as hate speech. In the United States there is no such thing as hate speech **laws** , that is true at least. In other nations that do have such laws, not only does hate speech exist but it’s legally defined. It’s a factually incorrect statement, like saying that there is no such thing as pizza. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204.md?page=12)