Catholic journalist gets visit from police after ‘misgendering’ a trans person

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Why would it necessarily “stoke” violence, or even be expected to?

All dehumanizing rhetoric does.

So…

…and please answer the question…

If someone came to me and purposely called me by a woman’s name, is it reasonable [and human] for me to be “stoked into” responding with violence, on the grounds that the person has “dehumanized” me?

Which is more de-humanized…

1. Calling someone by an unwanted pronoun? Or:
2. Being “stoked into” violence by anyone doing so?

 

[John24]

I think perhaps you misread my post.

Purposefully calling someone the wrong pronoun stokes anti-trans sentiment which results in violence.

In an environment where trans people are at much higher risk of violence than cis people dehumanizing rhetoric fuels that anti-trans violence.

 

[HarryStotle]

I think perhaps you misread my post.

John24:

Purposefully calling someone the wrong pronoun stokes anti-trans sentiment which results in violence.

In an environment where trans people are at much higher risk of violence than cis people dehumanizing rhetoric fuels that anti-trans violence.

Wouldn’t you suppose that trans-people threatening to “take it outside,” calling the cops, threatening lawsuits, instigating job firings, doxxing individuals, promoting laws which infringe on free speech, verbally assaulting others, and generally making a huge deal out of a small affront, are all far more likely to “fuel anti-trans sentiment,” as compared to shrugging it off or quietly and politely stating their wishes?

Case in point… [language warning]

I suspect that video did far more to “stoke anti-trans sentiment” than a calmer more reasonable shrug and smile on the part of the supposed “victim,” no?

Who really was dehumanized and violated in that video?

 

[John24]

Wouldn’t you suppose that trans-people threatening to “take it outside,” calling the cops, threatening lawsuits, instigating job firings, doxxing individuals, promoting laws which infringe on free speech, verbally assaulting others, and generally making a huge deal out of a small affront, are all far more likely to “fuel anti-trans sentiment,” as compared to shrugging it off or quietly and politely stating their wishes?

Martin Luther King Jr. gives the definitive answer to this question in the Letter from Birmingham Jail.

 

[HarryStotle]

Wouldn’t you think that threats of violence, lawsuits, fines, or jail times merely because people express their opinions on controversial beliefs is more de-humanizing than someone sharing their true beliefs?

Isn’t one aspect of humanity – the one aspect that makes us human in the first place – our capacity to think things out for ourselves?

Thus bringing the full brunt of the law down on people’s heads for not agreeing with what we think is, in itself, dehumanizing the society we live in?

Isn’t respecting the opinions of others the distinctively human thing to do, precisely because it honours the autonomy and integrity of the person to be themselves?

Forcing groupthink as a function of law has a dehumanizing effect, no?

 

[John24]

Isn’t one aspect of humanity, the one aspect that makes us human in the first place, our capacity to think things out for ourselves?

Yes. That’s why when someone has thought things out and realized they’re gender non-conforming, and others deny that, it’s dehumanizing.

 

[HarryStotle]

Martin Luther King Jr. gives the definitive answer to this question in the Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Do you mean the part about

• “…the gospel of freedom,”
• the “…process of self-purification,”
• the “…workshops on nonviolence,”
• “…accepting blows without retaliating,”
• being “…earnestly opposed [to] violent tension,”
• …the tragic effort “…to live in monologue rather than dialogue,”
• the "…just law [being] a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,
• that “…any law that degrades human personality is unjust,” or
• “…an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law…?”

As to your comment…

Purposefully calling someone the wrong pronoun stokes anti-trans sentiment which results in violence.

Isn’t merely assuming that using a wrong pronoun can be expected to “result in violence” exactly what MLK was getting at when he wrote:

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights [i.e., freedom to speak his/her mind] because the quest may precipitate violence.

Take special note of the last sentence.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

If someone came to me and purposely called me by a woman’s name, is it reasonable [and human] for me to be “stoked into” responding with violence, on the grounds that the person has “dehumanized” me?

My name is Sue. How do you do. NOW YOU GONNA DIE!!!

 

[John24]

Isn’t merely assuming that using a wrong pronoun can be expected to “result in violence” exactly what MLK was getting at when he wrote:

No. What he was getting at was sentiments such as:

Wouldn’t you suppose that trans-people threatening to “take it outside,” calling the cops, threatening lawsuits, instigating job firings, doxxing individuals, promoting laws which infringe on free speech, verbally assaulting others, and generally making a huge deal out of a small affront, are all far more likely to “fuel anti-trans sentiment,” as compared to shrugging it off or quietly and politely stating their wishes?

Just as it’s wrong to blame a robbed man for possessing money, it’s wrong to blame trans people for violence against them because they weren’t quiet or polite enough while pushing for basic human respect.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Isn’t one aspect of humanity, the one aspect that makes us human in the first place, our capacity to think things out for ourselves?

Yes. That’s why when someone has thought things out and realized they’re gender non-conforming, and others deny that, it’s dehumanizing.

And forcing others to agree with that “realization” is NOT dehumanizing for those being forced?

There are two sides at play here.

Recall MLK’s words: "…the tragic effort …to live in monologue rather than dialogue…”

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

No one is violently attacking these people. In fact, the only documented violence we do have is trans individuals violently assaulting or verbally abusing, by which I mean harassing, screaming, and cursing at, people who make the mistake of using the logically appropriate pronouns for them, virtually always by accident. Which was Harry’s point. You are saying that someone who naturally and inadvertently calls a man a man is responsible for the violent attacks on their person. It’s like the classic older sibling routine- “Stop hitting yourself, why are you hitting yourself”! You are saying that words are violence and violence is victimization.

 

[HarryStotle]

Just as it’s wrong to blame a robbed man for possessing money, it’s wrong to blame trans people for violence against them because they weren’t quiet or polite enough while pushing for basic human respect.

Who is being violated more, the journalist facing a fine or jail sentence or the trans-woman being referred to by her/his former name?

I don’t see violence against the trans-woman, s/he can call herself what she wants because she is free to do so.

I do, however, see violence against the journalist who is not free to express her deeply held thoughts about gender, because the full brunt of the law is about to come down, unjustly, upon her rights to think and express herself freely.

Is it an act of “violence” to think biological males are male? Why should anyone be forced to deny facts of existence, merely because someone else wishes to fantasize about those facts?

For the record…

No one is blaming “… trans people for violence against them because they weren’t quiet or polite enough while pushing for basic human respect…” in this case. This trans-woman hasn’t had any violence against her/him, but s/he is violating the free speech and free thought rights of the journalist.

It is wrong to blame the journalist for having her own ideas, just as it is wrong to blame a robbed man for possessing money. The journalist is being robbed of her right to possess her own ideas, and then being blamed for possessing them. That is the violence being committed here.

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m glad the UK police is taking hate speech seriously.

I agree but getting upset about the terminally indignant isn’t necessarily the route forward.

 

[HarryStotle]

Martin Luther King Jr. gives the definitive answer to this question in the Letter from Birmingham Jail.

And let’s be absolutely clear here. MLK was speaking of immutable characteristics, characteristics that no one has control over, and no one can change. Characteristics which are irrelevant to one’s rights as a human being.

What you are speaking of is one person using their capacity to decide about mutable ideas, forcing their “truth” on everyone else around them.

Sexuality is an immutable characteristic. No one can change the chromosomes in every cell of their body which determine their sex.

Gender is supposedly a mutable characteristic in the minds of some who claim to be able to determine theirs independently of the sex. They can, given their freedom to think, decide on their own behalf what they consider the “truth” for themselves.

They DON’T have a right, however, to impose their own mutable determination about gender and their deliberations about gender on everyone else. That dehumanizes everyone else who must, they insist, submit only to their way of thinking, despite that their way of thinking is controversial and not at all settled. They, in fact, are actually doing violence to the freedom of others to think for themselves.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

It’s still the mother’s child and the Catholic mother is talking with the 26-year-old’s mother.

How exactly does she expect someone’s mother to react when she insults their kid?

When I was 26 my mother would have gone full Tiger Mom on anyone who hurt me.

I’m muting this thread now as I frankly find this woman’s behavior unnecessary, and considering it’s Lent, a bit ugly. If other Catholics wish to celebrate her, then that’s their choice. I would prefer to pray for everyone involved in the situation rather than call names.

It is unclear how the argument was “continued” on Twitter after the TV segment. I have a hard time believing this Catholic Mum just got on Twitter and started berating Susie Green out of the blue, especially when Ms. Green has shown a pattern of going after people she disagrees with by reporting them to the police for thought crimes. Now if that is how it went down then that it pretty weird behavior on her part and I don’t agree with it. But I can’t say I have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Green. She isn’t just some rando mom who let her son go through sex reassignment surgery and happened to agree to a TV interview. She is a public advocate for widespread use of hormone and surgical means on children to “cure” gender dysphoria. She runs an organization that promotes it. She uses her son as a poster child for this approach, and he likewise does the same. So if she wants to advocate for these public policy proposals using herself and her son as the public face for them, then they are both open to criticism for it.

 

[John24]

Recall MLK’s words: " …the tragic effort …to live in monologue rather than dialogue… ”

Dialogue by definition requires two people. If you begin by dehumanizing your dialogue partner then you’re not really seeking dialogue.

 

[John24]

Misgendering is dehumanizing.

 

[John24]

Do you similarly discount people of color when they describe how dehumanizing racial slurs are?

Many don’t. Suicide rates for trans people are high.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Recall MLK’s words: " …the tragic effort …to live in monologue rather than dialogue… ”

Dialogue by definition requires two people. If you begin by dehumanizing your dialogue partner then you’re not really seeking dialogue.

Again, if you begin by assuming your dialogue partner is dehumanizing you merely by having a different belief from you, then you are “not really seeking dialogue.” You are insisting on a monologue where ONLY your beliefs count to begin with. A true dialogue BEGINS by respecting the person, including THEIR beliefs as THEIR beliefs without discounting those beliefs along with the person who holds them from the get go.

This is the same as blaming a robbed man for possessing money: Susie Green is assuming the journalist is victimizing her/him merely because the journalist holds beliefs that are different from Susie Green’s. Susie Green is attempting to rob the journalist of the right to have her own beliefs on the matter, then blaming the journalist for the robbery by claiming the journalist incited the robbery merely by possessing or holding her ideas.

The fact that you don’t see this is, itself, worrisome.

 

[HarryStotle]

Many don’t. Suicide rates for trans people are high.

Perhaps what needs to be researched is the cause of that rather than assuming the reasons.

Hypersensitivity on the part of trans people might be an important factor?

In that case, why would treating everyone else rather than the hypersensitivity be the prescription?

Wrapping bubble wrap around everyone, plugging all ears, sticking duct tape over every mouth, and immobilizing potentially wayward fingers in the vicinity of keyboards doesn’t sound like a practical solution.