Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Similarly, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with any organization, governmental or private, deciding what's acceptable speech based on its degree of hate. I'm not saying such speech shouldn't be argued against, but I don't think an authoritative ban is going to solve any real problems, and its potential for abuse is far too great to be outweighed by the slim chance of the good it would do.

Implemented properly it prevents the sort of cultural institutions that leads to genocide. I'm perfectly okay with censoring hate speech.

Going from "hate speech" to "genocide" is a ridiculously huge leap.

I'm pretty much anti-censorship in all its forms. We can't, nor should we try to, control how people think. Limiting what people can say, no matter how ludicrous, is tyrannical. Let people spout their hate; don't let them act on it.

[KaelGotDwarves]

No. No it isn't.

Hateful speech that incites others to action is only one step away from actual genocide. The act of killing.

[G-Flex]

I'm not saying that every single aspect of the disorder has to be treated as legitimate, but if someone's neurology and body don't match up and it causes them distress simply due to that (which does happen, as far as I know), then that's a significant disorder regardless of how society treats those individuals with regard to gender identity.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but you can't deny that there are aspects of this which can certainly be deemed legitimately disordered, whether the determining factor is mere internal factors or social pressure/indoctrination. Example of the latter: If someone grows up either not knowing of homosexuality, or indoctrinated to think that homosexuality is wrong and bad and sinful, but he turns out to be homosexual anyway, and develops an intense self-loathing because of it, that self-loathing/cognitive dissonance can certainly be termed disordered, even if the only reason he is that way is because society brought him up poorly.

[Bauglir]

EDIT: Oh, and on the disorder definition, it seems to me that the disorder is a physical one, not a mental one. The problem is the body failing to match the mind, not vice versa.

How can you even draw that distinction? The body is one thing, and the brain expects another thing to be there? Neither one can be considered objectively "problematic" except in relation to the other. Whether you consider it a neurological/psychological problem or a physical one is completely arbitrary, as you could go about it from either angle.

I agree that it's only the relation that's problematic, but that's the thing. Only the mind can determine what the relation ought to be, because only a mind can have a concept of "ought". The body can't disagree, it can only fail to meet expectations; it's an object (an exceedingly important one, mind). I can't think of a justification for insisting that the mind should conflate what is with what ought be.

[Virex]

Gender Identity Disorder Reform.

So apparently there is a movement to remove it from the DSM-IV and instead change our culture to increase acceptance of gender-benders!  That's pretty cool!

The alternative to it being a disorder is that transsexual people are fretting over nothing, or worse, faking it. I'd prefer people labeling a problem as such. Perhaps we need to change our attitude to mental disorders instead of trying to reason them away.[/quote]

[KaelGotDwarves]

Let's continue with real life examples.

The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass murder of an estimated 800,000 people in the small East African nation of Rwanda... Estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000,[2] or as much as 20% of the country's total population...

local print and radio media fueled the killings while the international media either ignored or seriously misconstrued events on the ground.[19] The print media in Rwanda is believed to have started hate speech against Tutsis, which was later continued by radio stations. According to commentators, anti-Tutsi hate speech "...became so systemic as to seem the norm." The state-owned newspaper Kangura had a central role, starting an anti-Tutsi and anti-RPF campaign in October 1990. In the ongoing International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the individuals behind Kangura have been accused of producing leaflets in 1992 picturing a machete and asking "What shall we do to complete the social revolution of 1959?" – a reference to the Hutu revolt that overthrew the Tutsi monarchy and the subsequent politically orchestrated communal violence that resulted in thousands of mostly Tutsi casualties and forced roughly 300,000 Tutsis to flee to neighboring Burundi and Uganda. Kangura also published the infamous "10 Hutu Commandments," which regulated all dealings with Tutsis and how Hutus were to treat them.

Two radio stations key to inciting violence before and during the genocide were Radio Rwanda and Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). In March 1992, Radio Rwanda was first used in directly promoting the killing of Tutsi in Bugesera, south of the national capital Kigali. Radio Rwanda repeatedly broadcast a communiqué warning that Hutu in Bugesera would be attacked by Tutsi, a message used by local officials to convince Hutu that they needed to attack first. Led by soldiers, Hutu civilians and the Interahamwe attacked and killed hundreds of Tutsi.

The Cambodian genocide, Holocaust, Black slayings during the US Civil Rights Movement, recent abortion doctor shootings... When your speech goes from "I dislike _________" to "__________ deserve to die and someone ought to do something about it" I'd say your hate speech has gone too far and ought to be censored, or at least discussed publicly in a matter as to why this is morally abhorrent.

[G-Flex]

I agree that it's only the relation that's problematic, but that's the thing. Only the mind can determine what the relation ought to be, because only a mind can have a concept of "ought". The body can't disagree, it can only fail to meet expectations; it's an object (an exceedingly important one, mind). I can't think of a justification for insisting that the mind should conflate what is with what ought be.

By this logic, if I have a delusion that my body must have wings, the problem is with my body, not in my head.

[Truean]

[shrugs]

I think there is a difference between say... a boy wanting to feel pretty and wear dresses while hanging around girls (Somehow they say most cross dressers are straight. I haven't met any....) and a person in a male's body who hates that their body isn't female and prays each and every night for it to be female.

Simply, do you like just the clothes or would you happily undergo anything to alter your body itself...?

I once heard someone say something about how "straight" transsexual people (who like the opposite sex of what they hope to transition to) also somehow were more "legitimate," but I don't seem to agree with this.

I agree that it's only the relation that's problematic, but that's the thing. Only the mind can determine what the relation ought to be, because only a mind can have a concept of "ought". The body can't disagree, it can only fail to meet expectations; it's an object (an exceedingly important one, mind). I can't think of a justification for insisting that the mind should conflate what is with what ought be.

By this logic, if I have a delusion that my body must have wings, the problem is with my body, not in my head.

South Park does this in the episode Mr. Garrison becomes [ahem] Mrs. Garrison. I maintain this is a case of "did not do the research before writing." They have Kyle and his dad undergo operations to be "a black" (and stereotypically good at basketball [headdesk]) and his dad becomes "a dolphin."

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Would a naturalistic argument matter? I know "The Doctor" who is now banned, would argue from his transhumanist standpoint, but I don't know.

[Andir]

Hateful speech that incites others to action ...

I have a problem blaming the person that said it, vs the person that did it.

If I told someone to go jump off a bridge and they did it... do you blame me or the person that jumped for not realizing how terrible that idea is?

[Vector]

Another alternative to it being a disorder is that we forget our stupid ideas about gender and sex being fundamentally intertwined, and reject the hypothesis that there is nothing but two genders at all.

Does it have to be an illness?  Is the "sickness" in the individual, or in the society?  Where are we to aim our pejoratives and ire?

I'm not saying that every single aspect of the disorder has to be treated as legitimate, but if someone's neurology and body don't match up and it causes them distress simply due to that (which does happen, as far as I know), then that's a significant disorder regardless of how society treats those individuals with regard to gender identity.

Right.  I would at least partially agree to that, though I believe there could be a "cut" in the definition to limit it more heavily to those situations.  I'm not exactly an expert on this, though.  I'd still agree with the folks that are terming it a physical problem, rather than a mental problem.  The question is one of emphasis--i.e. whether the body is to be changed, or the mind.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but you can't deny that there are aspects of this which can certainly be deemed legitimately disordered, whether the determining factor is mere internal factors or social pressure/indoctrination. Example of the latter: If someone grows up either not knowing of homosexuality, or indoctrinated to think that homosexuality is wrong and bad and sinful, but he turns out to be homosexual anyway, and develops an intense self-loathing because of it, that self-loathing/cognitive dissonance can certainly be termed disordered, even if the only reason he is that way is because society brought him up poorly.

Right, but wouldn't that just be a homosexual status with cognitive dissonance, etc. on the side?  The homosexuality, in and of itself, is doing nothing.  It is the reactions of society to a nominally harmless behavior.

By this logic, if I have a delusion that my body must have wings, the problem is with my body, not in my head.

...

So, how do you suggest dealing with this individual?  Are we to say that all transgendered people are schizophrenics, now, as we likely would for the other?

(Hint: I don't think so.)

[KaelGotDwarves]

Hateful speech that incites others to action ...

I have a problem blaming the person that said it, vs the person that did it.

If I told someone to go jump off a bridge and they did it... do you blame me or the person that jumped for not realizing how terrible that idea is?

Telling someone to jump off a bridge is not the same as "hate speech".

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

If you wish to pursue that barely related tangent, our law system (supposedly) judges by "intent". If someone was plotting to murder someone and had a hand in getting another person to do the deed, they too would be tried and probably convicted before a jury. If they are able to say that they had no intent of actual harm coming from their words, well, that's a tricky legal situation.

What I'm saying is that theoretically, saying that groups of people deserve death because of no fault of their own is not speech that should be tolerated in a moral society.

[Leafsnail]

Right, but wouldn't that just be a homosexual status with cognitive dissonance, etc. on the side?  The homosexuality, in and of itself, is doing nothing.  It is the reactions of society to a nominally harmless behavior.

...No, not really.  The feeling that you are in the wrong body causes distress in and off itself, and will often require treatment.  This would be the case regardless of how society treats transexuals (although the way society treats transexuals obviously exacerbates the problems).

[G-Flex]

Another alternative to it being a disorder is that we forget our stupid ideas about gender and sex being fundamentally intertwined, and reject the hypothesis that there is nothing but two genders at all.

While I agree that would help with many things, how on Earth does this solve the problem of a person being born whose physical sex characteristics do not match up with what the brain expects them to be? This has absolutely nothing to do with gender at all, it has to do with a mismatch between a person's neural body-mapping and their physical anatomy.

Does it have to be an illness?  Is the "sickness" in the individual, or in the society?  Where are we to aim our pejoratives and ire?

Here's the problem: You somehow think that calling something a "disorder" means you're placing blame, ire, or pejoratives upon the person. Or at least that's what your statement comes off as. Obviously, this is not true., and it doesn't.

If someone runs up to me with a baseball bat and breaks my leg, then yes, that person deserves the ire, but I've still got a broken leg and that's still a legitimate medical problem. Similarly, if problematic elements within society get to someone in such a manner that he develops a psychiatric problem because of it, it's still a problem even though he isn't to blame.

Real life, less-controversial example: My girlfriend's parents take care of foster kids, and have adopted some kids as well. Many of these kids were abused or neglected when very young, and as a result, they have significant psychiatric problems and disorders. Saying "let's not call them disorders because the problem was with their environment" does not help. Even though their disorders are the result of upbringing, abuse, neglect, or other social/environmental factors, they are still disorders. Similarly, even if someone with a gender-related psychiatric disorder only has that disorder due to either the arbitrary indoctrination imposed upon him by society, or society's abuse levied upon him, his disorder should still be taken seriously. Just because a psychiatric problem isn't the person's own fault does not mean it isn't a psychiatric problem, and saying otherwise belittles their problem to the point where you're acting as if it doesn't deserve real treatment.

Right.  I would at least partially agree to that, though I believe there could be a "cut" in the definition to limit it more heavily to those situations.  I'm not exactly an expert on this, though.  I'd still agree with the folks that are terming it a physical problem, rather than a mental problem.  The question is one of emphasis--i.e. whether the body is to be changed, or the mind.

Again, whether you consider it a mental or physical problem is arbitrary; neither is "right" or "wrong", as the entire problem is that some fundamental neurology deviated in development from some fundamental anatomy. What matters is which approach works better or is more useful with current methods and technology. Right now, those methods are pretty sorely limited, as we've gone through earlier in the thread, but obviously, the anatomical method is the only choice we have at the moment. So to say that it's either a "mental" or "physical" problem is, honestly, not even a valid question. If a square peg doesn't fit into a round hole, is the hole problematic or the circle? It's a problem of incompatibility, not a problem inherent to either one. Now, further research could possibly change this conclusion depending on what we learn about the etiology of the condition (i.e. what actually causes it).

Right, but wouldn't that just be a homosexual status with cognitive dissonance, etc. on the side?  The homosexuality, in and of itself, is doing nothing.  It is the reactions of society to a nominally harmless behavior.

Well, it would be distinct from general "cognitive dissonance" in that it has to do with a very specific part of the psyche, in this case sexuality. Being such a specific yet nuanced phenomenon gives it reason for special consideration, especially if it's common. This is commonly done in psychiatry, as it's just a matter of classification. It's not "a homosexual person who happens to have cognitive dissonance", it's "a homosexual person with cognitive dissonance regarding their homosexuality, spurned on by destructive social attitudes and indoctrination". The dissonance has to do with a particular and very complex aspect of the self which has its own unique pitfalls and considerations, as I said.

...

So, how do you suggest dealing with this individual?  Are we to say that all transgendered people are schizophrenics, now, as we likely would for the other?

(Hint: I don't think so.)

I wasn't making a statement about transsexuals here (this does not mean the same thing as "transgendered", and I'm not sure why you seem to use the terms interchangeably when it's hopefully clear which one I'm talking about and when). It was just an argument against the particular logic he was using (that if the mind expects one thing and the body is another thing, the problem cannot be deemed psychiatric). I was demonstrating a case that is distinct from being transsexual but which nonetheless exposes the flawed nature of the logic used.

Obviously the situation is different in the case of the transsexual, as it has to do with normal development of sex characteristics, and the brain and body just happened to deviate along those lines for one unfortunate reason or another; it's not a matter of delusion or psychosis or schizoid thought, or anything like that, just a matter of the brain mapping itself to the wrong parts in development (or, conversely, the parts themselves developing into the wrong ones; again, it's arbitrary).

[Andir]

What I'm saying is that theoretically, saying that groups of people deserve death because of no fault of their own is not speech that should be tolerated in a moral society.

The problem is that hate speech can be codified by the speaker and anyone can interpret it in any way.

For instance, If someone got up and said that the governor was worthless at their job and should pay for their lack of action while a crowd of people cheered... then someone takes it upon themselves to assassinate that person:

Would you blame the person that said they should pay?  (What if they only intended that they do community service?)
Is it hate speech?  (It's: communication that disparages [a person] on the basis of [other characteristic / their work performance])

[Vector]

All right.  I think I need to do more research before I stick my foot further in my mouth.  It has become utterly clear to me that I don't know enough about this subject to discuss it.