If you read the classical texts defending freedom of speech (Mill, Spinoza, Kant, et.c.), you’ll see that the point was supposed to be to get as many ideas as possible up on the table, so they can be rationally discussed and considered.
They were quite clear that harassment, shaming and other ways of shutting people up, goes against this purpose - and while they might not want the government to get involved, I don’t think they’d have a big problem with platforms doing content moderation to prevent those sorts of things.
I know a few people that are trans or on a similar journey. I never thought any of them had an agenda, they were just living their lives.
One of them came out publicly while I was working closely with them. They sent out an email informing everyone what their new name was, what their preferred pronouns were, and it included an FAQ with some links with more information. It had to be a super scary thing to do but they understood that it’s something new for a lot of people, myself included, and they were happy to talk about questions people had. People were very welcoming. Of course there was some office gossip but it all quickly died down and it never came up again (that I heard). No agenda, just people living.
If a co-worker had continued using the trans person’s old name, yeah I’m sure that would be harassment. Not respecting someone’s wishes for themselves is typically harassment (at a minimum).
It is possible to harass and shame people by misgendering them, e.g. by conspicuously and repeatedly referring to them in the third person. I think some people do try to chase trans people off the public square using tactics like that. Beyond that, my gut feeling is that if it’s a belief that’s presented honestly and curiously, those philosophers would want it expressed.
The whole trans debate is a bit of a mess in this regard, I think. For trans people, it is very personal, and it’s been jazzed up so much by the whole culture war bs. Everyone who has an opinion on it, seem to finish presenting it with “END OF DISCUSSION”, not really in line with those enlightenment ideals.
If you read the classical texts defending freedom of speech (Mill, Spinoza, Kant, et.c.), you’ll see that the point was supposed to be to get as many ideas as possible up on the table, so they can be rationally discussed and considered.
They were quite clear that harassment, shaming and other ways of shutting people up, goes against this purpose - and while they might not want the government to get involved, I don’t think they’d have a big problem with platforms doing content moderation to prevent those sorts of things.
Removed by mod
I know a few people that are trans or on a similar journey. I never thought any of them had an agenda, they were just living their lives.
One of them came out publicly while I was working closely with them. They sent out an email informing everyone what their new name was, what their preferred pronouns were, and it included an FAQ with some links with more information. It had to be a super scary thing to do but they understood that it’s something new for a lot of people, myself included, and they were happy to talk about questions people had. People were very welcoming. Of course there was some office gossip but it all quickly died down and it never came up again (that I heard). No agenda, just people living.
If a co-worker had continued using the trans person’s old name, yeah I’m sure that would be harassment. Not respecting someone’s wishes for themselves is typically harassment (at a minimum).
It is possible to harass and shame people by misgendering them, e.g. by conspicuously and repeatedly referring to them in the third person. I think some people do try to chase trans people off the public square using tactics like that. Beyond that, my gut feeling is that if it’s a belief that’s presented honestly and curiously, those philosophers would want it expressed.
The whole trans debate is a bit of a mess in this regard, I think. For trans people, it is very personal, and it’s been jazzed up so much by the whole culture war bs. Everyone who has an opinion on it, seem to finish presenting it with “END OF DISCUSSION”, not really in line with those enlightenment ideals.
Surely we aren’t striving for quantity over quality. Because that’s where this sorta leads
That’s exactly the idea. The process of rational discussion and consideration is supposed to take care of the quality.
Obviously this was before the birth of the internet, and also before the birth of the think tank :l
Maybe there should be quality criteria for what constitutes an idea worth discussing. Not every social media post is an idea.
I agree. And criteria for the moderators too of course.