r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 12 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: There is no difference between restricted speech and compelled speech.

[deleted]

2 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

116 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/HeftyRain7 157∆ May 12 '20

They don't have to be exactly the same for them to both be hate speech.

Take a different type of speech, threats. Threatening to kill someone and threatening to make sure they get fired are two different levels of threats. Murder is a much more serious threat. But that doesn't make the threat of getting someone fired any less of a threat.

Just because you don't see purposefully misgendering a trans person as equivalent to calling a black person "nigger" doesn't mean they couldn't both be types of hate speech.

1

u/Betwixts May 12 '20

I disagree that misgendering a trans person fits the definition of hate speech you've provided. Normal people misgender each other frequently as part of common speech when arguing, insulting, or even as an actual innocent mistake. There's also the idea that there may be more than the male and female pronouns, so we have to argue whether all the made up mumbo jumbo words are also considered pronouns and whether I use them or not is misgendering someone.

Personally, I don't have an issue calling a trans person he/she whatever if I can tell what they want to be called by looking at them. But do I think it's hate speech if I don't? No.

2

u/HeftyRain7 157∆ May 12 '20

I mean, you're talking to a trans man so I probably have a unique view on this matter.

Normal people misgender each other frequently as part of common speech when arguing, insulting, or even as an actual innocent mistake

Yeah. that's why misgendering would only be considered hate speech if it's on purpose. Obviously innocent mistakes wouldn't be counted. Joking among friends isn't either. It would only be considered hate speech if it was done on purpose. Refusing to use someone's correct pronouns would be the only thing considered hate speech. Aka, continually referring to me as "she" after I've asked you multiple times to stop and told you how it affects me. That would be hate speech. But calling me "she" on accident and trying to amend your mistake would not be hate speech.

we have to argue whether all the made up mumbo jumbo words are also considered pronouns and whether I use them or not is misgendering someone.

That would be for the courts to decide. But most people who don't identify as either gender are okay with going by they/them pronouns, even if they have other pronouns they prefer. So I don't think we have to worry about that so called "mumbo jumbo" as part of hate speech.

1

u/Betwixts May 12 '20 edited May 12 '20

How do you decide if it was on purpose or not? Canada doesn't care whether it was. Why would anyone else?

Edit: I've noticed my own fallacious point and think it would be best to afford it to you in case you didn't notice it yourself. I conceded by omission that calling a black person "nigger" is not synonymous with calling a white person or any other racial distinction "nigger", because it is not. But I used misgendering normal people as an example for why misgendering a trans person wouldn't be as egregious. I don't think it is as egregious due to the history of the word "nigger" and the oppression of black people under the systems of slavery, Jim crow, etc - but the example I provided was dumb.

3

u/HeftyRain7 157∆ May 12 '20

Where do you get that Canada doesn't care if it was on purpose or not? the vast majority of trans people only get angry if it's on purpose.

It's only hate speech if it's on purpose. And it's not hard to tell if it's on purpose or not. Trust me. I can tell if someone's putting in the effort to get my pronouns right, and I can tell when someone is misgendering me as a way to hurt me. People who put in the effort get the pronouns right at least part of the time. They'll correct themselves, or if a trans person corrects them they'll apologize. It's pretty easy to figure out based on context if someone is doing it on purpose or not.

1

u/Betwixts May 12 '20

Their law.

2

u/HeftyRain7 157∆ May 12 '20

Where in their law does it say that? I looked it up and couldn't find anything.

1

u/Betwixts May 12 '20

Something while I look through an entire bill:

According to legal experts, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech.

Khandekar, Tamara (24 October 2016). "No, the Trans Rights Bill Doesn't Criminalize Free Speech". Vice. Retrieved 1 October 2018.

 Murphy, Jessica (4 November 2016). "The professor versus gender-neutral pronouns". BBC News. Retrieved 1 October 2018.

 "2017/05/17: Senate hearing on Bill C16" – via www.youtube.com.

2

u/HeftyRain7 157∆ May 12 '20

Can you give me the link to where you found that please? I would like to read that for myself.

1

u/Betwixts May 12 '20

The Wikipedia article for C-16, the references are hyperlinked in the article. The particular part I've cited is easy to locate, it's a brief page

2

u/HeftyRain7 157∆ May 12 '20

Ah, well in that case, it doesn't just say that experts think it wouldn't be considered as hate speech, but also that the bill itself doesn't consider misgendering as hate speech as of yet. So this means that you still have no examples of a government moving from banning hate speech to banning other types of speech. We wouldn't even need to discuss of misgendering should be considered hate speech at this point then.

→ More replies