NYT’s Continued Meaningful Discussion of Transgender Issues

Apparently, the memo has gone out that we can start relying on common sense again. Pamela Paul, writing at the NYT, discusses the bizarre and unfair campaign of threatened violence against J.K. Rowling. Perhaps this is the beginning of what surely should be a more productive conversation that recognizes the reality of the two biological sexes:

So why would anyone accuse her of transphobia? Surely, Rowling must have played some part, you might think.

The answer is straightforward: Because she has asserted the right to spaces for biological women only, such as domestic abuse shelters and sex-segregated prisons. Because she has insisted that when it comes to determining a person’s legal gender status, self-declared gender identity is insufficient. Because she has expressed skepticism about phrases like “people who menstruate” in reference to biological women. Because she has defended herself and, far more important, supported others, including detransitioners and feminist scholars, who have come under attack from trans activists. And because she followed on Twitter and praised some of the work of Magdalen Berns, a lesbian feminist who had made incendiary comments about transgender people.

You might disagree — perhaps strongly — with Rowling’s views and actions here. You may believe that the prevalence of violence against transgender people means that airing any views contrary to those of vocal trans activists will aggravate animus toward a vulnerable population.

But nothing Rowling has said qualifies as transphobic. She is not disputing the existence of gender dysphoria. She has never voiced opposition to allowing people to transition under evidence-based therapeutic and medical care. She is not denying transgender people equal pay or housing. There is no evidence that she is putting trans people “in danger,” as has been claimed, nor is she denying their right to exist.

Take it from one of her former critics. E.J. Rosetta, a journalist who once denounced Rowling for her supposed transphobia, was commissioned last year to write an article called “20 Transphobic J.K. Rowling Quotes We’re Done With.” After 12 weeks of reporting and reading, Rosetta wrote, “I’ve not found a single truly transphobic message.” On Twitter she declared, “You’re burning the wrong witch.”

On Feb 15, 2023, GLAAD and its allies sent a letter to the NYT, broadcasting clearly that they don't want people to have real conversations about transgender topics. They insist that there is only one side to the story, and their allies have done their damndest to silence anyone with a differing viewpoint with shame, cancelation, economic loss and violence. GLAAD's letter was signed by more than a few people who have written for the New York Times. I waited with interest, curious about how the NYT would respond. The NYT response was very difficult to find on Google, which pretends to be an unbiased search engine, but was worth the wait:

The NYT also released this message that they will not tolerate the authoritarian tactics of those who pretend to seek to discuss trans issues:

Continue ReadingNYT’s Continued Meaningful Discussion of Transgender Issues

Robert Malone’s Metaphor

Robert Malone:

There are many metaphors and memes circulating which seek to capture the self-evident evil and corruption which all but those blinded by “Mass Formation” and the massive FifthGen Warfare PsyOps campaign which has been deployed upon the entire world over the last three years. Of all of these, the simple binaries of heaven and hell, God and the Devil seem to distill it all down into a black, bilious bitter liquor which has withstood the test of time. Speaking for myself, I am caught between the banal and the profoundly spiritual as I survey this twenty first century information battlescape.

Continue ReadingRobert Malone’s Metaphor

About Trusting Wikipedia

I just learned about a 2021 article titled "Nobody should trust Wikipedia, says man who invented Wikipedia."

Excerpt:

"Larry Sanger, the man who co-founded Wikipedia, has cautioned that the website can’t always be trusted to give people the truth.

He said it can give a “reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything.”

“Can you trust it to always give you the truth? Well, it depends on what you think the truth is,” said Mr Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia in 2001 alongside Jimmy Wales.

He told Lockdown TV that “if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that.”"

Continue ReadingAbout Trusting Wikipedia

Measuring First Amendment Ignorance

New report by FIRE indicates that many Americans who are celebrating the Fourth of July with BBQ and fireworks don't appreciate the meaning of the holiday.

In a recent AmeriSpeak panel conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, FIRE asked 1,140 Americans if they could name any of the specific rights protected by the First Amendment. The results were dismal.

Almost a third of Americans could not name a single enumerated right protected by the First Amendment and another 40% could name only one — usually freedom of speech. Among Americans who named one or more enumerated rights, roughly two-thirds (65%) named freedom of speech, about a quarter (26%) named freedom of religion, 20% named the right to assemble, 15% named freedom of the press, and 8% named the right to petition. Only 3% of Americans could name all five and, on average, could name 1.33 First Amendment rights. In other words, Americans’ knowledge of the First Amendment remains poor.

he AmeriSpeak panel is funded and operated by NORC, and is a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population. Although knowledge of the First Amendment was low across the board, some notable differences did emerge. Generally, males were able to name significantly more rights than females, although they still averaged less than two (1.47 and 1.23, respectively). Males were also significantly more likely to name four-of-five First Amendment rights than females were:

69% of males named freedom of speech compared to 61% of females. 24% of males named the right to assemble compared to 16% of females. 18% of males named freedom of the press compared to 12% of females. 11% of males named a right to petition compared to 5% of females.

These findings may reflect greater interest in the First Amendment among males. Other surveys have found that, compared to females, males are more likely to adopt an absolutist stance on the First Amendment and are more willing to allow the expression of statements that are offensive or hateful. Scholarship has long documented that males are also more opposed to censorship in a number of different content domains.

Liberals were significantly more likely to name at least one right and significantly more likely to name at least two rights compared to moderates and conservatives. One-third of conservatives and 27% of moderates could not name a single right, compared to 15% of liberals. Liberals also named significantly more rights on average than moderates did, although, as with males above, liberals still named less than two rights on average (1.56 and 1.28, respectively).

Generational differences are also evident. Americans aged 18-29 were significantly less likely to name free speech (55%) than other Americans, particularly those aged 45-59 (67%) and those aged 60 and older (70%). Those aged 18-29 (19%) and those aged 45-59 (21%) were also significantly less likely to name freedom of religion as a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, compared to Americans aged 30-44 (30%) and those aged 60 and older (29%). Thus, older Americans appear to be the most knowledgeable about the First Amendment, suggesting that knowledge may decline further as they age and represent a smaller overall portion of the American population.

Continue ReadingMeasuring First Amendment Ignorance

EFF: Internet Free Speech Depends Upon Many Weak Links

Tonight I tried to watch two shows on Rumble.com, but all I could see was this:

This might simply be an innocent technical issue. I hope so. When I see the entire network go down, however, I am concerned. Is this the result of an attack on Rumble.com?  I hope that things get fixed and that we are advised about what happened and why. In the meantime, I find myself thinking about this article by EFF:

I'm very much aware that if the Internet Hosts decided that they would exclude certain types of information, many websites, such as mine would disappear. That is one vulnerability of many. Here are the others:

Here is an excerpt from the EFF article:

Speech on the Internet requires a series of intermediaries to reach its audience. Each intermediary is vulnerable to some degree to pressure from those who want to silence the speaker. Even though the Internet is decentralized and distributed, "weak links" in this chain can operate as choke points to accomplish widespread censorship.

The Internet has delivered on its promise of low-cost, distributed, and potentially anonymous speech. Reporters file reports instantly, citizens tweet their insights from the ground, bloggers publish to millions for free, and revolutions are organized on social networks. But the same systems that make all of this possible are dangerously vulnerable to chokeholds that are just as cheap, efficient, and effective, and that are growing in popularity. To protect the vibrant ecosystem of the Internet, it's crucial to understand how weaknesses in the chain of intermediaries between you and your audience can threaten speech.

Each of the links above represents a link in the chain of intermediaries that directly facilitate or indirectly support speech on the Internet.

Website are also vulnerable as a result of "Shadow Regulation"

Shadow Regulations are voluntary agreements between companies (sometimes described as codes, principles, standards, or guidelines) to regulate your use of the Internet, often without your knowledge.

I don't like the fact that I have so little control and that my website could be quickly erased but for the willingness of all of these entities the cut backroom deals with each other, but that is a sad fact.

Continue ReadingEFF: Internet Free Speech Depends Upon Many Weak Links