Do we care about free speech anymore?

[Calmthedrama]

Not exactly an AIBU, but traffic and opinion here is high, so it seems a suitable place to ask big questions.

Personally, I believe people should be able to freely share and voice unpopular and unusual opinions in the public realm (both online, in the media and at public / state institutions like universities etc). This would include allowing so called ‘hate speech’ proponents onto various platforms in society to share their views, even if the many consider these views to be something-ist or something-phobic.

I believe that by shining a light on all views and opinions, we are able to learn from each other and (hopefully) better understand the motivations behind such thinking. This naturally leads to wider debate and promotes deeper thinking as well as a general respect for healthy debate.

It also forces all opinion / activist proponents to make better and more informed arguments and obviously publicly showcases any charlatans / psychopaths for what they are. E.g. if someone can’t provide evidence / make sense when making a case for some extreme opinion, then everyone learns.

I believe that the society wide increase in de-platforming and public ‘cancelling’ of individuals feels a bit like a race to the bottom intelligence wise. It leads us back on a well trodden path to fascism and a place where the ‘thought police’ become a reality.

Do people really understand what free speech means and why it’s so important anymore? Or do we just want to silence people we don’t like / understand / fear etc?

But of course there is 'no objective truth' that can be identified on the trans matter; within the scientific community and within respected bodies there are diverging views and new understandings that are developing all the time

Scientists absolutely love a good discussion and any decent scientist is prepared to change their mind based on good data, but there is simply no good data that supports anthing else than sex as being binary and immutable. You might not like that (and I know you don't) but it's still true, opinion pieces where the author conflates sex and gender are not a substitute for actual science.

Of course, you teach that science is an evolving field with multiple disciplines and the potential for differing and changing understandings over time.

Science of course in the past has relied on supposed 'facts' about females, children, ethnicities, that have subsequently been revised.

Holocaust Denial is stupid because there is so much evidence, testimony, photos, actual buildings and survivors that can be used to counter the view.
it’s a bit like dinosaur denial ( yes people think they are hoaxes) or the theory the earth is 5000 years old or similar crackpot ideas. I think society needs to hear what others think So we understand why preserving these things for future generations and it being an on going conversation so if in 500 years when we are all long dead there will still be the evidence of the holocaust and it will be impossible for a bad faith actor to hijack the conversation as it is an ongoing one.

This might interest you - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

I've posted a link to a paper that might interest you, for fear of being blocked for posting the link too many times, it's the one from Scientific American that I posted on two replies already.

@EhrlicheFrau
That is the kind of reference that is always give at that point and it is a truly awful piece of science writing. It's politics not science, Scientific American should be absolutely ashamed of it. You can post it as much as you want it doesn't make it true or better.
And yes @suggestionsplease1 I'm an actual scientist, correct.

I think if scientists want to discuss the possibility of there being 3 or 5 or 10 sexes they should be allowed to crack on. But want they shouldn’t be allowed to do is say that the conventional wisdom of their being 2 sexes is bigoted or hate speech or wrong until they have conclusive evidence peer reviewed of their claims and society and the overwhelming majority of scientists accepts this 5 sexes is correct.
It’s the no debate, Robert winston is a bigot , teaching this in schools before this is the case that is the problem and exact opposite science.

Ah yes, we should publicly allow hate speech to “learn” and to hell with the consequences of it towards those that are being spoken hatefully about. Let’s publicly speak hatefully about race, disability, mental health, benefits, wealth. There absolutely cannot possibly be repercussions on that happening….

I suggest you have your IQ tested OP, there’s a bit of free speech for you.

Do you not consider Scientific American reputable?@Igneococcus Why have they not retracted the article if it is as problematic as you believe?

As a scientist, do you feel Mumsnet readers should consider an anonymous poster on a thread's opinion as holding more weight?

Oh gosh, how you have misinterpreted my post, and come across as quite condescending.
I posted the article simply to make people aware that there are other scientific view points out there, not to 'make it true or better' but to point out that research is ongoing.
As someone who was also an 'actual scientist' in a previous life, but thankfully found better ways to spend my time, I would add that while it's definitely not the best piece of scientific literature I've ever read I also wouldn't necessarily call it political.

Sorry to jump in @suggestionsplease1 in my opinion SA sometimes publish articles in a way which are more 'reader friendly' to non-scientists. People who call themselves 'real scientists' sometimes therefore discount the content. I posted that link not to turn anyone toward it, or to say it was right or wrong, simply one example to illustrate that research is on-going in the sex/intersex/number of actual sexes side of the genders/sex debate. Hope that helps, ignore if not.

That is one of two tired old links from SA regularly trotted out on this issue. Both are rather poor opinion pieces, neither are by developmental biologists. The tiny, tiny fraction of cases where development goes wrong are not evidence for anything other than "something went wrong".

Feel free to share you copious links to peer reviewed papers by developmental biologists which evidence anything other than sexual dimorphism in mammals but please do so on a separate thread instead of trying to subvert this one.

The poster said several times they’re not trying to subvert the thread. Even when they post out of date papers that still suggest human sex differentials are evident of multiple sexes, when in fact there is no true ‘intersex’ in humans. Even those with differentials in sex chromosomes are either male or female when talking about human biology. Perhaps on this other thread this poster will also explain what characteristics these new sexes show in difference to male and female to evidence their undeniable separation from other sex, and what exactly does that have to do with gender ideology that is not the same as biological sex differentials.

You think it’s an utterly ridiculous opinion. Doesn’t mean that everyone else does or is going to when they read it. If everyone was going to immediately dismiss it there would be no need for the people that started that particular ‘belief’ to try and disseminate it.

Thanks for your interesting opinion, I am assuming you missed the at least 3 posts where I stated that I was fervently trying not to 'subvert this one' and actually suggested to someone else that they do so when they kept trying to push an debate about exactly this topic?
Also, at what point did I say anything about the SA article, other than to use it to highlight that people are still interested in the biology behind sex determination, and that research is being carried out? That's correct, I didn't.
If you are going to express a view on a post, please make sure you are up to date with the whole of the discussion otherwise it just looks a bit uninformed. Maybe we can close this whole aspect of this thread now, and get back to OP telling that we can say what we like, to whoever we like, and about whoever we like, in the name of free speech?

The poster has already explained this multiple times.
The poster cannot help if others misinterpret what is written.

Actually you’ve said a lot about nothing at all. You put in ‘well obviously I think different’ or link bad articles then run off with fingers in ears saying ‘but I don’t want to talk about it!’. And yes this thread has inevitably gone down the old gender debate route but you have been complicit even if you’ve stated that you don’t want to drag it down to that in your (endless) responses to it.

Would you start your own thread about this discussion? Because you do seem very sure of your opinions yet have built them on very fragile grounds of evidence it seems and it would certainly be interesting to see if you have something of more substance to add to the discussion.

Thanks for your opinion, which free speech allowed you to express.
Have a pleasant day.

I take that as a no then judging by the Bot-like response. Have a good one 👍.

You're not wrong. The number of replies you've had saying that free speech which could be considered offensive should not be allowed is an excellent indication of how far cancel culture and restrictions on free speech have permeated society. It's extremely concerning.
I'm almost a free speech absolutist, even for the most offensive opinions. When deeply offensive or dishonest are allowed be aired and discussed freely, their power is diminished. The BNP was disbanded soon after Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time.

Your argument seems to be that because opinions have changed in the past, we can no longer know anything now and any opinion can be regarded as ‘scientific’, as any opinion may one day be regarded as ‘scientific fact’.

This is not a credible position. You have to present good reasons for a scientific hypothesis and then good data, which keeps on accumulating, for a solid scientific theory.

You position does however illustrate why we need free speech/ expression so that we can debate these ideas and distinguish where ideas are bad, or good/ can be substantiated or not.

Your position should not be suppressed as misinformation but subject to debate and scrutiny.

Yes, the majority would still care and are intelligent enough to see when they are being gaslighted. Cancel culture is on decline. You will see.

OP, this is what Karl Popper was referring to in his "paradox of tolerance" - in a nutshell, if society tolerates the intolerant (racism, sexism, etc), then the intolerant will eventually overpowerthe tolerant. So no, there should absolutely be limits on "free speech" (which is depressingly often conflated with "platform").

@EhrlicheFrau I'm not sure an obscure scientist writing an article than seems to backfill 'facts' based on a seemingly political position. I would suggest that if weren't such a hot and right on topic this kind of piece wouldn't have got anywhere near a respected publication. But as others have said, free speech and debate allows for this to be put out there and also allows for other biologists to rip it to shreds, but my suspicion is that said biologists either have better things to do or are afraid of the backlash from trans activists and don't wish to put off funders of their research who will pull funding at any sniff of controversy.

On the other hand, loudly telling a trans woman that she is a man, or insisting on calling the person ‘he’ is unnecessarily offensive and should expect a robust response

But it is offensive to many women to have to pretend any male person is a woman. Why should his feelings take precedent, especially when it comes at the cost of all female rights?
Being forced to call a man 'she' is compelled speech. Forced to lie.

We have laws that protect religious beliefs. That also includes not believing.
Why is gender identity ideology different?
Why must everyone else be compelled to comply with it's doctrine or face punishment? Why on earth is it being taught to children as fact?