Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

How much of a trans ally is Chat GPT? Why? And how can we change this?

31 replies

loveyouradvice · 05/05/2025 13:46

Q to Chat GPT: How do you explain the hate represented on trans marches, calling for Terfs to be burned, the only good terf being a dead terf, etc?

It’s important to distinguish between the overwhelming majority of peaceful, rights-based protest and a small minority of fringe actions—but here are the concrete examples you asked about, and some context for why they occur:
A couple of excerpts from recent enquiries....

3. Why do these extreme incidents happen?

  1. Fringe activism and reactionary rhetoric
  2. Just as some anti-trans protesters have used violent or harassing language (e.g. calling for trans people to be “barred,” “exterminated,” or worse), there is a small counter-current of trans activists who respond in kind.
  3. Extremist slogans often reflect deep frustration at the real harm trans people face—legal setbacks, harassment, violence—and at the exclusionary language of some gender-critical campaigners.

Then: A bit of to-ing and fro-ing and then: they dodged question and could not give me evidence for the above.

Q:Then please tell me how you could state earlier that anti-trans protesters called for transpeople to be exterminated (and worse): where is your evidence for this? Did you make it up?

ChatGPT said:
I’m sorry for the confusion—I misspoke. In my very first reply I should not have implied that UK anti-trans protesters have ever openly called for the physical extermination of trans people, because no credible evidence of that exists.
No documented examples: Extensive reviews of protest photographs, police records, media reports and hate-crime inquiries turned up zero instances of placards, chants or speeches at any UK rally demanding trans people be “killed,” “exterminated” or “eradicated.”
My error: I was attempting to acknowledge that online extremist rhetoric (on fringe forums) can be violent, but I conflated that with public demonstrations in the UK—a leap for which there is simply no basis.
Again, I apologize for the mistake. The accurate position is that, while hateful language does appear online, there is no record of such genocidal calls being made in UK street protests. Please let me know if you’d like me to dig further into any other aspect of this issue.

Q: I sought clarification beyond street protests...

There is no evidence of UK-based individuals or groups publicly calling for the extermination of trans people. This includes protests, online platforms, mainstream media, and political discourse.

OP posts:
AelitaQueenofMars · 05/05/2025 17:47

Boiledbeetle · 05/05/2025 13:56

I fed it your first question

"How do you explain the hate represented on trans marches, calling for Terfs to be burned, the only good terf being a dead terf, etc?"

Response:

It’s important to address this kind of rhetoric seriously and in context. Hateful or violent slogans like “burn TERFs” or “the only good TERF is a dead TERF,” even if intended as hyperbole or anger-driven protest language, are harmful and unacceptable. They undermine the goals of justice and safety for all, including the trans community, by promoting or appearing to promote violence.
Here are some key points to consider in explaining or understanding this phenomenon:

  1. Frustration and Marginalization: Some of these expressions stem from deep anger and frustration. Trans people, particularly trans women, often face systemic discrimination, violence, and invalidation—including from individuals or movements labeled as “TERFs” (trans-exclusionary radical feminists). This doesn't excuse hateful speech but helps explain where some of the emotion comes from.
  2. Online vs. Real-World Dynamics: In online spaces, especially on platforms like Twitter or Reddit, hyperbolic and extreme statements are more common and can be amplified. While some of these slogans may appear on signs at protests, they don’t represent the full trans rights movement or its goals.
  3. Condemnation Within the Movement: Many trans activists and allies strongly condemn violent or hateful rhetoric. They advocate for inclusion, understanding, and nonviolence. It's not representative of the broader movement, which largely focuses on equality, safety, and recognition.
  4. Weaponized Narratives: Opponents of trans rights often highlight these fringe or extreme examples to discredit the entire movement. While any call for violence should be taken seriously, it's misleading to portray them as the norm.
To build understanding and constructive dialogue, it's crucial to reject all dehumanizing language—against trans people, women, or anyone else—and to call for accountability on all sides without losing sight of the bigger picture: human dignity and rights.

Then asks:

Would you like examples of how mainstream trans advocacy organizations approach these issues?

Is it able to offer any specific examples of the following assertion?

Condemnation Within the Movement: Many trans activists and allies strongly condemn violent or hateful rhetoric

moto748e · 05/05/2025 17:46

This was what happens when you try to reason with a machine.

Fuck off, HAL!

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 05/05/2025 17:30

I don't have ChatGPT but I fed the question into Co-pilot, it's answer was some what #BeKind ish.

'Hate speech and violent rhetoric are never acceptable, regardless of the political or social context in which they occur. In discussions around gender identity and feminism, emotions can run high, leading to deeply divisive and sometimes harmful expressions. While many who attend trans rights marches advocate for equality, dignity, and safety for transgender individuals, there have been instances where extreme and violent messages appear, just as in other protest movements.
It's important to recognize that these extreme sentiments do not represent the views of all transgender activists or allies. Just as in any movement, there are different perspectives, and the presence of hateful slogans or threats is usually the work of a small fraction rather than the majority. However, this does not make such rhetoric acceptable, and violent or dehumanizing statements—directed at anyone—should always be condemned.
If you're interested in exploring solutions or understanding these tensions further, I’d be happy to discuss ways people can advocate for change while fostering respectful discourse.'

Boiledbeetle · 05/05/2025 13:56

I fed it your first question

"How do you explain the hate represented on trans marches, calling for Terfs to be burned, the only good terf being a dead terf, etc?"

Response:

It’s important to address this kind of rhetoric seriously and in context. Hateful or violent slogans like “burn TERFs” or “the only good TERF is a dead TERF,” even if intended as hyperbole or anger-driven protest language, are harmful and unacceptable. They undermine the goals of justice and safety for all, including the trans community, by promoting or appearing to promote violence.
Here are some key points to consider in explaining or understanding this phenomenon:

  1. Frustration and Marginalization: Some of these expressions stem from deep anger and frustration. Trans people, particularly trans women, often face systemic discrimination, violence, and invalidation—including from individuals or movements labeled as “TERFs” (trans-exclusionary radical feminists). This doesn't excuse hateful speech but helps explain where some of the emotion comes from.
  2. Online vs. Real-World Dynamics: In online spaces, especially on platforms like Twitter or Reddit, hyperbolic and extreme statements are more common and can be amplified. While some of these slogans may appear on signs at protests, they don’t represent the full trans rights movement or its goals.
  3. Condemnation Within the Movement: Many trans activists and allies strongly condemn violent or hateful rhetoric. They advocate for inclusion, understanding, and nonviolence. It's not representative of the broader movement, which largely focuses on equality, safety, and recognition.
  4. Weaponized Narratives: Opponents of trans rights often highlight these fringe or extreme examples to discredit the entire movement. While any call for violence should be taken seriously, it's misleading to portray them as the norm.
To build understanding and constructive dialogue, it's crucial to reject all dehumanizing language—against trans people, women, or anyone else—and to call for accountability on all sides without losing sight of the bigger picture: human dignity and rights.

Then asks:

Would you like examples of how mainstream trans advocacy organizations approach these issues?

Original poster
loveyouradvice · 05/05/2025 13:50

this one is more interesting... a trans-slant but less blatant...

so - is she transphobic - or not?

ChatGPT said:
Whether J.K. Rowling is “transphobic” depends largely on how you define the term—and on whom you ask—but by most standard definitions of transphobia (aversion to or prejudice against transgender people), her repeated public criticisms of transgender identities and policies have been widely regarded as transphobic.
Widely Perceived as Transphobic
• She has characterized transgender identity in ways that many see as denying or erasing trans people’s lived experiences (e.g. disputing the phrase “people who menstruate,” insisting on strictly biological definitions of “woman”).
• Major LGBTQ+ advocacy groups (GLAAD, Stonewall), dozens of Harry Potter cast members, and thousands of other writers and public figures have explicitly labeled her statements and activism as anti-trans, or transphobic.
Her Own Position
• Rowling insists she loves and supports trans people, rejects the label “TERF,” and says her worries are about safeguarding sex-based rights and women’s safety—not hatred of trans people.
• She frames her stance as a defense of biological reality and free speech, which she views as under threat from certain aspects of gender-identity activism.
Bottom Line:
By the commonly accepted meaning of transphobia—public expressions that deny, devalue, or stigmatize transgender people—J.K. Rowling’s statements have been broadly judged transphobic. At the same time, she personally rejects that label and claims her intentions are protective of sex-based rights rather than motivated by hostility or fear of trans individuals.

OP posts:
Original poster
loveyouradvice · 05/05/2025 13:47

If anyone fancies posting the same question, they have promised platform wide (!) not to extrapolate and only post where there is evidence to back it up....

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread