# ...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:** 4
**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 24, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/61 "2019-10-24T16:49:43Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Nope, I’m sorry I don’t agree that this is a complete view of the matter. > > I think on ideological grounds we should _respect_ how anyone chooses to identify. If a furry identifies as a non-human animal, and wants to be treated as one, I believe ideologically that we should respect that. But nothing is going to convince me that any human objectively really does have the same neuron configuration as a dog, because it take doggy genes to make a doggy brain. > > Gender identity is in a different category. _Not only_ should we respect a person’s self-stated gender identity on ideological grounds, _but also_ there is a plausible scientific basis to believe that gender identity as distinct from somatic phenotype is objectively real, in the sense that someone can have (say) XY karyotype and the biological sex of a man, but _actually have_ a similar neuron configuration to someone with an XX karyotype and the biological sex of a woman. > > And I think, in fact, that gives insight in to what board policy should be. We can surely discuss the objective scientific question while always remaining respectful on ideological grounds. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I agree with this take. If someone asks me to call them a houseplant, then I’ll call them a houseplant – that’s just being a decent neighbor. But there’s an enormous amount more than this to gender identity – it’s not just about someone deciding on a whim to be something that they’re not. There really is real science and study behind it. I hear both of you, and I don’t really mean we should ignore science here. What I meant to emphasize was that gender variant people have explained their personal experience very compellingly. Even if there were no scientific findings of relevance to their experience, their experience, by itself, ought to convince us all. Bring me a person who identifies as a dog or a houseplant and have them tell me a similarly compelling and sense-making story and I’ll give them due consideration, but in the absence of that, they make no more sense to me than the “attack helicopter” troll. The same is not true of people who identify as trans-race. I’ve known some. We have a clearer sense (I daresay) that “race” is entirely social, that there are no built-in differences specifying “white” personality or behavior and “black” personality or behavior, etc – but there sure are social patterns, with projected expectations and assumptions, and if someone says “who I am is a person of THAT race” because it fits (or at least fits far better), that makes sense to me. And that’s without an iota of scientific “proof” that people of different races differ meaningfully, let alone that some individuals have the traits of some other race. With sex, the notion that some people born male have “attributes more associated with female people” and vice versa is intrinsically and inherently dependent on there being sex-based differences in the first place. I don’t think we even know THAT for certain. But I’m not saying the science part is wrong, or even that it is irrelevant, but I _am_ asserting that it is _not necessary_. For me. It should not be for you either. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/62 "2019-10-24T16:59:05Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > And to add, of course - I believe as a biologist that my scientific take on it is plausible, but it’s a completely open question, and that aspect _should_ be discussed actively. I think that absolutely contributes to fighting the widespread ignorance that it’s “basic biology” that transgender people cannot _really_ have an identity that differs from their physical body at birth. I completely accept that people can be and are born with a brain structure/chemestry that makes them truly and honestly and sincerely feel like/identify as the opposite sex–the social and philosophical question is does that mean that they _are_ the opposite sex, and that they should be considered the opposite sex by the rest of society. And I think that someone giving the opinion that the answer is “no” aren’t objectively wrong (or right) on this _philosophical_ issue. You might as well call saying “marrage is between a man and a woman” or “abortion is murder” or “Greta Thunberg was being hilariously overdramatic in claiming that global warming stole her childhood” hate speech. (And I’m sure there are posters on this thread who would _love_ for that to happen.) ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/63 "2019-10-24T17:15:20Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > I completely accept that people can be and are born with a brain structure/chemestry that makes them truly and honestly and sincerely feel like/identify as the opposite sex–the social and philosophical question is does that mean that they _are_ the opposite sex, and that they should be considered the opposite sex by the rest of society. And I think that someone giving the opinion that the answer is “no” aren’t objectively wrong (or right) on this _philosophical_ issue. You might as well call saying “marrage is between a man and a woman” or “abortion is murder” or “Greta Thunberg was being hilariously overdramatic in claiming that global warming stole her childhood” hate speech. (And I’m sure there are posters on this thread who would _love_ for that to happen.) But two things: First of all, I don’t think a lot of people understand that it is scientifically plausible. And explaining that to them may open them up to realizing that maybe they should be more open-minded on the philosophical/social implications of how we treat people. Second, I think we can decide to adopt a policy that anyone who has made the subjective decision that it is not correct to treat trans people at least _with basic respect_ in society may not demonstrate or advocate such disrespect on this board without sanction. And that we can adopt this policy on this board without stifling debate on every substantive aspect of the real questions here _except_ “should people be free to be jerks to other people in society”. I mean, technically that’s a topic that could be debated. We can just decide that we don’t want to have _that_ debate on SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/64 "2019-10-24T17:20:55Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > But I’m not saying the science part is wrong, or even that it is irrelevant, but I _am_ asserting that it is _not necessary_. For me. It should not be for you either. For me personally, of course it’s not. That’s exactly what I’ve made clear. But the issue it hand is whether moderation should allow other people who don’t share the view that people should be treated with respect regardless of the scientific questions to exhibit that disrespect on this board. Hence the importance of distinguishing substantive questions (including both biological and sociological/philosophical ones, as Darren noted) from the question of treating people with respect. ---
**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 24, 2019, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/65 "2019-10-24T17:25:34Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Second, I think […] that we can adopt this policy on this board without stifling debate on every substantive aspect of the real questions here _except_ “should people be free to be jerks to other people in society”. I mean, technically that’s a topic that could be debated. We can just decide that we don’t want to have _that_ debate on SDMB. If you are asking whether I think that’s an appropriate subject for debate, my answer is yes, without a doubt, I wholeheartedly think it is appropriate to debate whether people should be free to be jerks to other people in society. I don’t know if you realize just how many debates boil down to this question. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/66 "2019-10-24T18:07:36Z")
Asking people to ignore basic biology or science for ideological reasons is immoral. Now, is it the most sensitive way of expressing a particular biological idea? Perhaps not. But many of you folks are drifting into thought police territory. I think that’s inadvisable. ---
**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 24, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/67 "2019-10-24T18:14:23Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > For me personally, of course it’s not. That’s exactly what I’ve made clear. But the issue it hand is whether moderation should allow other people who don’t share the view that people should be treated with respect regardless of the scientific questions to exhibit that disrespect on this board. Hence the importance of distinguishing substantive questions (including both biological and sociological/philosophical ones, as Darren noted) from the question of treating people with respect. If someone says “men are men and women are women, and they cannot cross over to be the other,” that is not “disrespect”, but if someone calls Caitlin Jenner a “he,” that is? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/68 "2019-10-24T18:18:38Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Asking people to ignore basic biology or science for ideological reasons is immoral. Now, is it the most sensitive way of expressing a particular biological idea? Perhaps not. But many of you folks are drifting into thought police territory. I think that’s inadvisable. This is about vocabulary and social norms, nobody is mistaken about the biology. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/69 "2019-10-24T18:22:48Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > This is about vocabulary and social norms, nobody is mistaken about the biology. Not everyone is going to be comfortable with every subject though. When discussing biology and physics as it relates to humans some are going to have hurt feelings due to ideological reasons. Should conforming to their ideology, regardless of the ideology, be forcibly imposed on others? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/70 "2019-10-24T18:24:38Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Asking people to ignore basic biology or science for ideological reasons is immoral. Now, is it the most sensitive way of expressing a particular biological idea? Perhaps not. But many of you folks are drifting into thought police territory. I think that’s inadvisable. Please read the thread and fight your own ignorance. It is not “basic biology” that mental identity must always be in accord with somatic phenotype at birth. It will be easy enough to search SDMB and find comments I’ve made in the past that explain the scientific issues in some detail. If you choose not to, I will take the next time that you claim that your ignorant view of the matter is “basic biology” to be willful ignorance. ---
**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 24, 2019, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/71 "2019-10-24T18:28:03Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Asking people to ignore basic biology or science for ideological reasons is immoral. But we can still debate whether something is actually a question of biology, science or ideology, can’t we? Even your assertion of what constitutes immorality is open to debate on these forums. The question in the linked thread appears to be whether it is appropriate to use the female symbol on menstrual products. That debate might go, “It is inappropriate because it is inappropriate to use the female symbol on a product used by men, and men use menstrual products.” “Men do not use menstrual products.” “Transgender men are men, and transgender men use menstrual products, therefore men _do_ use menstrual products.” “Transgender men are not real men.” ~Max ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/72 "2019-10-24T18:30:41Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Not everyone is going to be comfortable with every subject though. When discussing biology and physics as it relates to humans some are going to have hurt feelings due to ideological reasons. Should conforming to their ideology, regardless of the ideology, be forcibly imposed on others? No. But it still has nothing to do with people denying the biology. It may be about the word “biological” though, because I think **Urbanredneck** was using “real” as a synonym for “biological”, as in the question I asked above about adoptive relationships. I don’t think it was nice the way he put it, it’s painful for an adoptive parent to hear that from their child, and even if the sentiment is not nice it’s still not hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/73 "2019-10-24T18:31:18Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > This is about vocabulary and social norms, nobody is mistaken about the biology. Well, no, that could hardly be further from the truth. Virtually everyone with a transphobic position ignorantly claims that their view is supported by “basic biology”. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/74 "2019-10-24T18:38:59Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Please read the thread and fight your own ignorance. It is not “basic biology” that mental identity must always be in accord with somatic phenotype at birth. It will be easy enough to search SDMB and find comments I’ve made in the past that explain the scientific issues in some detail. If you choose not to, I will take the next time that you claim that your ignorant view of the matter is “basic biology” to be willful ignorance. What someone else perceives a form to be also has some level of validity. Person A’s brain sees X, person B’s brain sees Y every test shows X or Y it’s polite to be polite but why does person A have to conform to the world view of person B just because person B’s brain has a different interpretation? Now, I am enlightened and I will call someone whatever they wish to be called. I’ll even try to use whatever usual pronoun, I’m not using Å as a pronoun. I don’t know how to pronounce it for one. But I don’t have the expectation that everyone else is going to feel the way I feel about this subject which is admittedly a challenge with the language that we all grew up with. Now over time as language evolves perhaps it will be less of an issue. Who knows? But to expect everybody to be at the same point on the subject at the same time or face legal or social sanction is unreasonable. > [@Max\_S](#): > > But we can still debate whether something is actually a question of biology, science or ideology, can’t we? Even your assertion of what constitutes immorality is open to debate on these forums. > > The question in the linked thread appears to be whether it is appropriate to use the female symbol on menstrual products. That debate might go, > > “It is inappropriate because it is inappropriate to use the female symbol on a product used by men, and men use menstrual products.” > “Men do not use menstrual products.” > “Transgender men are men, and transgender men use menstrual products, therefore men _do_ use menstrual products.” > “Transgender men are not real men.” > > ~Max If men is a set that includes transgender men and nontransgender men and whoever else identifies as men sure. But right now the definition of the set of men is usually understood to refer to the set of nontransgender biological men. Apologies in advance if I used one of those words wrong. I am sympathetic to the issue of human rights so I am sympathetic to however one feels about their own identity. I just think it’s counterproductive to enforce conformity to a rapidly evolving viewpoint. Labeling something hatespeech is enforcing conformity. Especially as we see government actually undermining free speech. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/75 "2019-10-24T18:41:14Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Well, no, that could hardly be further from the truth. Virtually everyone with a transphobic position ignorantly claims that their view is supported by “basic biology”. In that case “basic biology” means “my own narrow-minded opinion of what gender means”, not the science of biology. ---
**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 24, 2019, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/76 "2019-10-24T18:42:32Z")
Again, the idea that “We cannot make others conform to our way of thinking via persuasion and debate, so let’s make them conform to our way by force of forum law” goes pretty much counter to the essence of the Straight Dope. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/77 "2019-10-24T18:47:17Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > In that case “basic biology” means “my own narrow-minded opinion of what gender means”, not the science of biology. No, I think virtually all transphobic people (along with most non-transphobic people, for that matter) are genuinely ignorant of the science. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/78 "2019-10-24T18:48:03Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Again, the idea that “We cannot make others conform to our way of thinking via persuasion and debate, so let’s make them conform to our way by force of forum law” goes pretty much counter to the essence of the Straight Dope. Do you feel this way about all potential hate speech, or just this issue? Do you feel this way about, say, an argument that black people should be enslaved (or exterminated) because they are not fully human, as long as it’s expressed calmly and without invective? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/79 "2019-10-24T18:50:41Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > What someone else perceives a form to be also has some level of validity. Person A’s brain sees X, person B’s brain sees Y every test shows X or Y it’s polite to be polite but why does person A have to conform to the world view of person B just because person B’s brain has a different interpretation? > > Now, I am enlightened and I will call someone whatever they wish to be called. I’ll even try to use whatever usual pronoun, I’m not using Å as a pronoun. I don’t know how to pronounce it for one. But I don’t have the expectation that everyone else is going to feel the way I feel about this subject which is admittedly a challenge with the language that we all grew up with. > > Now over time as language evolves perhaps it will be less of an issue. Who knows? But to expect everybody to be at the same point on the subject at the same time or face legal or social sanction is unreasonable. What does any of that have to do with “basic biology”? > [@octopus](#): > > If men is a set that includes transgender men and nontransgender men and whoever else identifies as men sure. But right now the definition of the set of men is usually understood to refer to the set of nontransgender biological men. You are mistaken. > [@octopus](#): > > Apologies in advance if I used one of those words wrong. As the years go by, I’m less and less sympathetic to this common “I find this all so confusing” schtick. It’s really not that difficult to educate yourself if you actually have respect for the significant minority of your fellow human beings who are trans. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2019, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204/80 "2019-10-24T18:52:35Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > No, I think virtually all transphobic people (along with most non-transphobic people, for that matter) are genuinely ignorant of the science. In what way do you think someone who would make the statement that Urbanredneck did is ignorant of biology as it relates to this matter? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-board-consider-explicit-transphobia-hate-speech/842204.md?page=5)