Not to like censorship...

[Greenfairydust]

I am going to start this thread saying that I am not gender critical in any way.

But I am really concerned that threads are being deleted on the forum because they are discussing the Nike/DM controversy.

I disagree with gender critical feminists but I 100% support their right to discuss their concerns openly and this gives people like me a chance to put a counter-argument.

Censorship is never the answer.

A privately owned forum enforcing its talk guidelines is not censorship. You are not a victim.

Only the government has the power to censor people.

MN could ban all mention of haricot beans or the colour blue if they so chose, and it still wouldn't be censorship.

It is entirely possible for private platforms to censor certain topics, creating a bias, within their talk guidelines. Generally known as censorship.

@Squiblet so you are basically saying that anyone can say or do anything a no one can be offended by it incase their feelings are hurt?
Absolutely ridiculous

What? How on earth did you get that from what I said?

My point was that if you want to disagree with someone but keep the dialogue open, you can't do it by ignoring their feelings and justifying that by pointing to the facts.

Of course you can.
The facts are facts!
I have no problem with him calling himself whatever he wants.
But the fact is he is not a woman.
I am not a man and never will be .
And no amount of foot stamping or whining will change that fact!
It's pure misogyny and making sure that all women of the world are looked upon and treated with utter contempt to allow people to do whatever they please!
It's fucking ridiculous and dangerous for every woman

I dont understand your use of the word woke there, could you explain what it means to me?

Emotions are individual.
How do you propose we legislate to accommodate everyone's feelings? Whose feelings should matter more?
Do we decide on weight of numbers?
Should the majority view win or does the minority view win because otherwise the minority will feel oppressed?
Do the "facts" of unintended consequences not matter if to mention them hurts someone's feelings.

But it's not going to help the GC cause to keep saying, "the facts are on our side so we're right and you're wrong". This will only entrench everyone's positions even deeper and make any kind of dialogue impossible.

The GC side did not assert the matter was decided "no debate" so we are not the ones who have made dialogue impossible. We are also not the side who resorts to violence to silence the people we disagree with which is perhaps why we have decided that sticking to the facts is the only way forward.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of naked males in previously female spaces, it makes me feel quite vulnerable. My feelings don't matter of course because the side you think we are obliged to maintain dialogue with think I should be punched, decapitated, killed or choked on girl dick and say so without any condemnation. Hardly surprising I'm not worried about hurting feelings by sticking to facts.

You'll forgive me if I'm struggling to see this group as the most vulnerable and oppressed.

It's easy to say there should be no censorship, but do do really understand what that means?

We have societal values that are continually evolving. Some things are unacceptable and there is usually a bit of debate about them. Like this topic.

It means authoritarian and driven by ideology.

Because when stupid ideas gain credibility through repetition, the consequences can result in deaths

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

I felt a bit petulant/petty when I posted this but I am glad so many people are championing debate rather than blanket censorship.

I think people who are just posting insults/defamatory content/fake stuff on threads can rightfully expect to have comments deleted.

But I do believe people should be allowed to post their views on gender issues and then have others make a thought-through arguments as to why they disagree with these views, rather than just having them erased.

Somehow blanket deletion feels inappropriate.

I would, though, if I wanted to keep talking to you. Not just agreeing blindly but also not dismissing you with "nope, you're mistaken"

If I started demanding access to African American only groups, services or privileges like scholarships, you would, I think, be compelled to have the 'you're mistaken' conversation at some point. No?

Thing is in this debate facts do trump feelings. You cannot change your biological sex. A man cannot become a woman. Someone's feelings are irrelevant. Their feelings are in fact a sign of mental illness if they do believe they are female when male and vice versa.

''Lockheart · Today 13:05
A privately owned forum enforcing its talk guidelines is not censorship. You are not a victim.

Only the government has the power to censor people.

MN could ban all mention of haricot beans or the colour blue if they so chose, and it still wouldn't be censorship.''

Where to start...

It is not only government that has the power to censor. The media, private businesses, television and so on also have power to decide what is being said or not.

Where did I say that I was a ''victim''? I don't even agree with gender critical beliefs, which I made clear.

''MN could ban all mention of haricot beans or the colour blue if they so chose, and it still wouldn't be censorship.''

Come on. Any respectable company wants to maintain credibility...not to have random bans.

But at least the good thing is that you are able to express the fact that you have a different view than me on all this.

That is the whole point.

Dudes in dresses prancing around pretending to be girls.

See I think it's the comments like these that get the threads deleted.

I'm GC, but I'm also respectful of trans people. I'll use their desired pronouns, but I believe in sex segregated spaces and sport.

A lot of GC women don't have a problem with TW, or so they say. But when I see comments like the above, or things like 'they're in a fantasy world', while everyone is entitled to an opinion, I do find that a dehumanising one.

I think that Dylan's antics are sexist and offensive, but I'd think the same if it was a ditzy woman doing the same. It's perpetuating a negative stereotype about women being athletic.

@NotAnotherBathBomb I actually don't blame Dylan for accepting 50k to promote a sports bra.
Easy money!
I think it's Nike who are bang out of order!

Agree OP. I think it’s hugely worrying that in recent times there seems to have grown an intolerance of views that don’t chime with one’s own, to the point that free speech is being eroded.

It’s always dressed up in righteous clothing, with people giddy on the idea of their own virtue. They believe it’s ok to silence certain views because they’re wrong. They don’t understand the danger of the consequences that follow doing so. They always want the censorship to fall along the lines of the argument they favour, not the other side, of course. There’s been a thread on here today on these very lines about anti-vaxx rhetoric. People so focused on the evils of the deliberate information spreaders that they’re blind to the wider effects of shutting them down on everyone else.

I could be wrong, but it seems to be driven by younger people, who perhaps don’t have living memory of the pitfalls of this. I also saw an interesting post on here recently that said some young people appear to equate free speech with ‘right wing’ views, eg Toby Young etc. I suppose if you’re very invested in an identity where you see yourself as ‘good’, ‘right’, ‘left-wing’, etc and you think free speech is only a thing for horrid old right-wing bogeymen, you’re going to knee-jerk reject it, without doing more deep/critical thinking around the consequences of that.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of naked males in previously female spaces, it makes me feel quite vulnerable. My feelings don't matter of course because the side you think we are obliged to maintain dialogue with think I should be punched, decapitated, killed or choked on girl dick and say so without any condemnation. Hardly surprising I'm not worried about hurting feelings by sticking to facts.

Where did I say that only one side's feelings need to be taken into account? Both sides of a debate need to listen. I also find it concerning, painful even, that women's concerns about safe single sex spaces are not being listened to. If there was more listening and less name-calling on both sides, we might actually get somewhere. As it is we are hopelessly deadlocked.

Maybe there is something to be said for censorship after all.

Utah parents seek to ban a truly horrific book

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11894203/Utah-school-district-ban-BIBLE-complaints-new-conservative-law.html

If there was more listening and less name-calling on both sides

This both sides thing is so disingenuous. I have followed this debate since 2016. The main take from that is that women have patiently listened, tried to reach compromise, finally grown exasperated with it all, formed grass routes organisation and campaigned.
From the TRA side, there has been a few sane voices, but the overwhelming majority is threats of violence, name calling, doxing, stalking, using the police as their army, misrepresenting the law and contacting employers to try and get women sacked / cancelled. If you want examples of overwhelming tra violence look to kjk in NZ, and RG, the female swimmer who spoke up.

That is what both sides look like. So away with this nonsense.

I'm interested in this.

I See 'Dudes in dresses prancing around' as a rational description of what DM was doing (except the dresses bit).

The conversation around whether it's appropriate for DM to advertise for Nike entirely hinges on the fact that DM is in fact a dude, modelling women's clothes, and prancing around.

I'm not sure respectfully describing it as 'a transwoman performing an offensive pastiche of the way women exercise, to advertise women's sportswear while not having a woman's physique' is much better.

Sadly I think this is the case generally today. If someone disagrees with another person's view or even if they don't agree 100% then they are classified as a fascist, a nazi or some sort of "phobe". The art of rational debate seems to be disappearing fast in our society and is not helped by the way academia seeks to "de-platform" those who do not conform to the currently accepted view.

I really do wonder what our society is going to be like in 10 or 20 years and am very fearful.

I remember when I was at uni in the 80s people held all kinds of views and, shock horror, they even got on with those who had a different viewpoint.

Intolerance is the order of the day and many people don't want to question it as they are afraid of losing their jobs or being ostracised socially.

I was going to post on the now deleted thread that I really wondered if this was always just a cheap stunt by Nike and I felt that it felt quite exploitative towards DM.

Because the backlash of using someone who has not yet transitioned to advertise a sports bra was entirely predictable and it seems they had no concerns in putting a new, young ambassador through that.

I think fewer people would have had issues with them advertising trainers or leggings in a more sophisticated photoshoot/ad.

But that I guess would have not generated the publicity that Nike got out of this...

I See 'Dudes in dresses prancing around' as a rational description of what DM was doing (except the dresses bit).

I do agree. I mean, I get why people find it problematic, but the representation of 'womanhood' that is presented is so shallow and so facile, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to treat it with any kind of respect.

I wouldn't have any time for a woman pranced around like that, I'm not sure why I should when it's a man?