Shabrem wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
He was making an analogous point about trans people saying that they were a gender other than their assigned sex, is as delusional as a human, a mammal, saying they are a fish. How is that not hate speech? Saying a subset of people are inferior (crazy).
You are putting your own personal spin on Miller's intent.
This is what he actually said: "I was assigned mammal at birth, but my orientation is fish. Don't mis-species me."
You inserted the concept of superiority and inferiority.
He did not suggest a comparison between "human" and sub-human. He was using a metaphor, an analogy. You inserted the slight. Thankfully, the judge did not.
Freedom of speech 1.
Authoritarianism 0.
Yeah, he was using an analogy, again to say that a trans person claiming to be a different gender is like a mammal claiming to be a fish, which is crazy. He can't change his genus just because he said it. And this does not work as an effective metaphor for gender because is gender is a social construct, and means whatever we say it means, and has scientifically been proven to not line up with sex.
It might seem silly to you that this might be seen as offensive, but trans people have been abused for quite some time by the likes of their gender identity being compared to people saying they are apache attack helicopters. That is a "funny joke" to people who have no stakes in the discussion, but to transgender people it is disqualifying their identity. It is a slight to them, even if Miller does not identify it as such, but why do you think Miller is doing it.
You yourself quoted him saying: "I'm going to continue tweeting, I'm going to continue campaigning and I'm going to continue standing with women in order to secure their sex-based rights." I suspect that you are going to accuse me of making up Miller's intent, but I think that you can clearly identify his motivations, he is claiming to tweet as part of a campaign, and his campaign is to protect the "sex-based rights". What do you think that sex-based rights of women is supposed to mean? Well I think the obvious answer is that he wants to keep who he considers men out of women only spaces, a primary example being something like bathrooms.
Why do you think that Miller is trying to keep trans women out of women bathrooms? Why does anyone have that opinion? Stating the obvious it is again that he does not think that they are real women. But even if such, why would women need protection? Well, I am going to make a guess of common reasons for thinking trans girls/women should be kept out of women's bathrooms, and it is because he thinks that they are dangerous, he thinks that trans women in women only spaces is a danger to cis women. He is allowed to think that, he is allowed to have any number of crazy conspiracy theories and hateful opinions of others. But when he says it on a open platform like twitter, where his words can influence other to discriminate, something you quoted him on saying was part of what he considered part of campaigning, it is dangerously close to hate speech. And a judge saying that the transgender issue is different from other hate speech, that police cannot even give a warning to someone spouting it, is really overstepping.
Shabrem wrote:
Agreed. Some people choose to ignore intent.
Can you provide an intent of his words other than what I have said by looking at what his words were? Because his claim of not being prejudice against transgender people is kind of hollow when him claiming to be a fish has anything to do with reforms to the Gender Recognition Act.
_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall
29 Feb 2020, 2:31 am
