Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Graduate at Canadian university pilloried - free speech or transphobia?

Scroll to see replies

The madness of the trans lobby rears its ugly head again.

Nevertheless, the statement suggests that the debate of gendered pronouns is “disallowable speech” that constitutes “a form of epistemic violence that dehumanizes trans people by denying the validity of trans experience.”

It seeks to dictate what may be talked about, and the language that must be used, and also claims that deviation from what it dictates is violence against trans people. No discussion or deviation.

Madness!

The trans lobby is just organised bullying, which is ironic when you consider what it claims to stand for.

Reply 21

Good bloke

Original post by MakeEurópeWhite

when was this job created and by who?

It was invented by George Orwell. However, he called it The Thought Police.

Reply 22

NonIndigenous

Original post by SakuraCayla

Free speech is not freedom from consequence. Therefore, under free speech someone can say something transphobic, the consequence of that can then be they are called out/disciplined for their transphobia.

.Organisations all have policies which tend to include things against discrimination, and in support of minority groups and women. This includes universities and their university student unions. It wouldn't be considered against free speech for an organisation to not employ or to fire someone who was racist or sexist o homophobic, but it is often considered up for debate when someone is transphobic.

I don't know the context from the article that the video was played in, but it doesn't seem it was played in a way that put the safety of trans people first and foremost, especially trans people both who could have been in the lecture aswell as those attending that university in general. As such the person who played the video likely did break university (and union) policies of inclusion and against transphobia. As such it's not denying her her freedom of speech to play the video, but merely saying "You chose to do this knowing it was against our policies, now it's only reasonable you face the consequences". That isn't denying freedom of speech, that is merely upholding the contract between the university and their staff.

This pseudo intellectual garbage is tiresome.

In a civilized state, "consequence" is for the most part administered by the state, short of whatever contractual agreements exist between individuals (individual rights)... in which case the state also administers consequences for breaking such contractual agreements between individuals, should one choose to sue the other.

However, individuals aren't allowed to agree to just any contract they feel like between each other, if it violates other people's rights. Soliciting murder for example, is obviously illegal. Your individual rights and freedoms matter less, when you use them to suppress other peoples' rights and freedoms.

In a democratic country, the representatives of the state are elected by the general public with a given mandate that is generally based on what policies the general public does or does not support. Most policies, in essence, shape the "consequences" (laws) which the elected government is capable of enforcing on the population.

The "policies" you speak off in your post do not even have public support. For example, the M-103 motion in Canada doesn't have public support:
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/mps-certain-to-pass-m-103-thursday-but-new-poll-says-canadians-would-vote-down-anti-islamophobia-motion

Similar applies to all these "pronoun" speech codes regarding transgenderism.

And discriminating on the basis of race or sex, or any other garbage, is racist. There is no consensus that dictates that minority groups are somehow "above" being racist themselves, or benefiting from racism. This is another pseudo-intellectual flying spaghetti monster concocted by the far left. Even most ordinary left-wingers find the idea that "only white people benefit from racism" ridiculous. We see black-on-black ethnic divisions across most of Africa, just to start with.

Finally, explain to me how calling someone "he" despite that person insisting that that I call him "her"... is "suppressing their freedoms" more so than that person potentially using government power to make me call him "her". What's to stop that person simply walking out of the door, or calling me an *******, tit-for-tat? That's what most normal people would do. Rather than petitioning the government or even the UN in some cases to "crack down on _____phobia".

This debate ultimately boils down to which "rights" are a higher priority: freedom of speech, or another person's right not to be offended. Every person will have their opinion, but from every poll of the general public I have seen... the opinion is largely in favor of freedom of speech. Yet... these toxic policies limiting it, are slowly creeping in.

What boundary does this stupidity have? We already are seeing transgender (male-to-female) athletes participating in female sports... and for the most part absolutely mashing the crap out of their competitors. Is calling them what they are (men), "transphobic"? lol

This is just... no ideas this stupid could survive a rigorous debate. Or even a mediocre debate. Hence the emphasis on suppressing the debate altogether. Hence the emphasis of undermining freedom of speech.

.