Of course. How else am I supposed to know who the bigots are if we force them to hide every aspect of their bigotry?

I'm not saying people don't have the right to call anyone anything they want to. I'm saying; as a general rule we should refer to people as they prefer to be referred to.

All rules have exceptions. If someone wants to be known as King of England they obviously don't immediately accrue all the privileges that go with being King and nobody is forced to believe them or even call them that.

If someone just wants be known as Elliot I don't see the problem. Are people here saying there is a legitimate religious reason to not refer to someone as Elliot? I'd love to see the religious text that says it's followers must refer to people as their parental given name.

Something that needs to be pointed out.

1) Any law restricting what a white supremacist can or cannot say, is a law that, at a minimum, creates the precedent for a restriction on what good people can or cannot say. The problem isn't coming from empowering them, the problem is coming from what happens next. You always assume that good people will make the laws, but I am always concerned about what happens when laws are twisted by bad people.

2) We have laws protecting trans people, I am in favor of THOSE laws. I am not in favor of laws FORCING me (even though I give no push back to the polite attitude towards trans people) to use certain language when describing them. I will gladly do the right thing, but I don't think it should be a LEGAL requirement.

3) I think this is a good point in this conversation to make a statement. I am DJ 0045. Let's be clear about something here, I am probably the ONLY person on this site who is not anonymous. It would take about 10 minutes of effort to dox me. You all misname me, and have been doing so for years. DJ is NOT my name, the distinguishing name for me is 0045 (or if you really insist on shortening it, you could use "00"). Imagine, even here in this meaningless environment, if I were to start insisting that you all call be by my real nom-de-plume. Imagine if further to that I started reporting everyone who made a mistake and kept calling me DJ. Imagine if even more ridiculously, GoboStatus agreed with me. I would never do any of that, but let's be clear about what we're talking about. Furthermore, by this point, you should all know that DJ 0045 is my full nom-de-plume, and that DJ is clearly not an appropriate shortening of DJ 0045, because there are literally thousands of DJs, but only one 0045.

4) now imagine, if I were to suddenly, out of the blue, decide that you are all being disrespectful by calling me DJ, despite years of that being the norm. How quickly would you be able to wrap your head around the change? And let's be clear, this is obviously a meaningless example, but it would already be very difficult for most of you to have that change seem natural. It would be exceptionally weird if I started insisting that you all think of me as 0045. etc... etc... etc... BUT the real problem would only arise, in the event, as described earlier, that the authorities on this site, chose to ENFORCE that change.

Yes. That is a right they have in the US. You can’t arrest a person for saying the N word

I had a lesbian friend who liked to use “breeders” with an air of contempt as a derogatory term for straight couples. I thought it was a weird way to view the world and a little bit insulting as a straight person but it didn’t stop me from being her friend and thinking she had a right to express her opinions

I think it's fair to point out that years ago we did have another DJ here. And when we started referring to you as 0045 you insisted that because you were here first that we continue to just call you "DJ."

I’m just making an example, here. Plus, as Cucho would agree, I could change my mind at any time. I obviously don’t mind the shortening, or I’d have said something years ago.

All fair points.

If DJ wants to be called 00 or 0045 (how insanely fitting tho if DJ identifies as pure numbers lol), then I would like to be called Gay Gayerson going forward


Amazing posts, DJ. So many good points in that last batch

There are numerous incorrect interpretations in your reasoning. This isn't something that emerged out of nowhere or is whimsical in nature. Yet, you continue to approach it from a superficial perspective, focusing only on how it affects you without considering the core issue or taking the other side seriously. You're comparing this matter to trivial things like forum nicknames, yet this whole debate has real life consequences that you are either over looking or just dismissing entirely.

I don’t think theres an actual debate going here, thus I will not push it further.

My DJ name has been my DJ name since 1998 - literally 26 years (way more than half my life***). How is that emerging out of nowhere? It's also not whimsical, it is my legal name for copyright purposes, associated with my irl real name, again for copyright purposes (I have dozens of releases on multiple music labels under that name, some of which were played all over the world on radio stations, in live performances, etc.). If you were to use DJ 0045 to release music, I would take legal action against you, and I would probably win. Again, not at all whimsical, or superficial.

I am not focusing on how any of this affects me, it doesn't affect me at all, unless people like you pass laws controlling how people think or speak, and then I'm imagining terrible consequences. I am focusing on the idea of using laws to control speech or thought, and I am telling you that that is a terrible idea.

I am not debating whether misgendering someone's pronouns has consequences to that person. I'd probably disagree that those consequences are so serious as you'd like us to believe, but I am not dismissing them. As I said, I have no problem being polite.

If you are disagreeing with me, are you in favor of laws controlling how people use, for example, pronouns? Because it seems like I'm saying we shouldn't have those laws, and you are saying that I'm being impolite (but I've already said I would not knowingly be impolite to someone, at least within reason, and I'm guessing you and I would draw that line in pretty similar places).

*** for some perspective: I've been DJ 0045 longer than Ellen has been Eliot by more than a few years.

I think i very clearly said twice that I dont think new laws should be passing, as I think this whole thing is contained in human rights conventions.

And I have pointed out to you, that human rights convention would be contradicted by the ideas you propose. I even listed two that clearly would be violated by the idea that I should be forced to think about you in a specific way.

Note the difference:

You can think about you any way you want to.

You cannot force me to think about you any way you want to.

The first is freedom of thought, which I think you should have.

The second is limiting freedom of thought, and I consider freedom of thought to be a human right.

While individuals are free to express and manifest their religious beliefs, they must do so in a manner that does not infringe upon the identities or rights of others, particularly when those identities are rooted in equally fundamental aspects of personal identity, such as gender or sexual orientation. The right to expression is not absolute and must be balanced. While individuals have the right to express their opinions, including those on controversial topics such as gender identity or religious beliefs, this right does not extend to hate speech or actions that deny the dignity or existence of others’ identities. Respect for identity, therefore, acts as a boundary that ensures freedom of expression does not become a tool for discrimination or harm.

I will now proceed to show you the fallacy of what you just said, and why it's so damn dangerous.

1) Trump is, I assume we all agree, dangerous.
2) If I call him America's Hitler, you might even agree.
3) What happens when and if he decides that calling him America's Hitler is hate speech?
4) What if someone like him gets to decide what is appropriate speech? (Please note: I am thinking about your quasi-definition above. That definition draws some murky lines, and I'm asking what happens if someone like Trump gets to decide what falls on each side of those murky lines?)

The right to Free Speech should be absolute. Freedom of speech is a big deal. Now, are you free from the consequences of your speech? No you are not, but be very careful when and why you put consequences on free speech.

Let me ask you this: if I call you a she, does that in any way affect your ability to think or say that you are a he? Are YOUR rights in any way affected? I'd argue they are not.

Do you need protection from me? Sure you do, but not from my words. You need protection from my actions, and those protections already exist - at least in the US.

You say that this is not as harmful as I portray it, yet my 12Y old has a transgender friend or at least he is going through a very complex identity process, he has 2 suicide attempts... again this is 12- 13Y kids, one of their classmates keeps saying that she is not going to sit or make groups with people like him, and keeps using incorrect pronouns on purpose, his friend had to be removed from a previous school for this very reason, and the other day her mom had to retire him from school for this kind of events... EDIT The bullies parentstheir parents use the same arguments you use...

He has had lunch at my place a couple of times now, I don't know what is right or wrong for this kid wellbeing, but I´m pretty sure that all you defend here is used as a tool to bully him, this has made me and my wife had many conversations on the subject, so spare me with the comparisons that dont address stuff like this or try to push it under the carpet.

I as you take freedom of speech seriously, and would not want to put strings to it, but what do we say to kids like this?
If anything, we need to push respect in society, not entitle bullies.

I don't know what to say, other than this is exactly the kind of thing that would disqualify you from having a discussion about the aggregate situation. >>> It's too personal.

You'd have to grossly misuse my arguments if you felt they were usable in defense of bullying a 12 or 13 year old. Note: there's a huge difference between passively refusing to participate in their transition, and actively trying to hurt them with actions or words.

Reminder: we got into this discussion because we were talking about enforced retraining (attempted indoctrination) of Dr. Jordan Peterson - enforced by law. He, unlike us, is an actual expert on psychology. He would be the kind of person (or at least in the right profession) to try to help that child. He would have certain expert-level ideas and opinions on the matter, and how to resolve it. He might also have opinions, again expert level, on what age (if ever) a child should be encouraged to transition, what steps should be taken, how to handle other kids, etc... And it is his opinion/speech that is being limited.

EDIT: One last thing, I don't remember saying free speech is harmless. If I did, I take it back. I don't believe free speech is harmless, I think limiting free speech is more harmful than harmful free speech can be. That's an important distinction.

Luls... Alright, DJ, so you're saying I can't engage in this argument because I actually know a case that's directly affected? Meanwhile, you're speaking from a place of ignorance about what's really going on and expect your opinion to be taken seriously?

EDIT: to your edit, agreed, so consequences should be take place when freedom of speech is weaponized to push discrimination.

I don’t think the issue of suicidal ideation among that population is as simple to address as using preferred pronouns. This is a population group that carries high rates of confounding mental and emotional/trauma issues. This is a population group that even in studies which demonstrate a reduction in SI thru transitioning, the rates still remain significantly higher than gen pop.

It *may* be the case that the best way to address the problem of suicidal ideation in that population is not to affirm and encourage transition but to treat underlying issues thru psychological care.

An issue we have here is this problem is not well understood. The Cass review brought to public view the poor quality of studies that have been informing best practices around trans care. Prior to that review, countries like Sweden and England had done their own reviews of the scientific literature, seeing poor quality studies around affirmative care model and revising their policies.

Like it *could* be the case that affirmation feels good in the moment to the person involved but damages them in the long run because it doesn’t fix an underlying issue.

I don’t know what’s right. Maybe Christian’s are contributing to more suicides by not wanting to use preferred pronouns or maybe the folks pushing affirmation are contributing to more suicides. We will learn more over time.

Because I am clearly, dispassionately, and, to the best of my ability, rationally laying out the reasons for my opinion.

As for my earlier comment: I am simply asking, I this too personal for you? It may not be, I don't know.

___________________

Rules aren't made to benefit one specific child, they are made to benefit all children in the aggregate.

edit, BTW: what consequences do you propose to put on a 12 or 13 year old?

All kids should be granted basic respect for their identity and the right to pursue it, not just trans kids. If any child has an issue with how others refer to them, that should be a clear enough sign to stop. This clearly would benefit all children.