This is referred to as the paradox of tolerance. The idea that we have to tolerate intolerance is an incorrect resolution of the paradox. We can solve the paradox by reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty.
In this framing, everyone agrees to tolerate each other. If a group, such as fascists, decide to be intolerant to another group the fascists have broken the social contract of tolerance. The fascists are no longer covered by the protections of the social contract of tolerance and in the case of this disinformation campaign, their speech is not protected.
This is the minimum that freedom loving people should expect from their democracy. We should tolerate everyone, but not tolerate intolerance. Fascists do not have the right to deny groups the fundamental right to exist with their speech.
To be clear, gender affirming care is a collection of life saving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. That Canadian woman’s refusal to spread a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign was a strategic decision to defend life and liberty.
But I’m saying we shouldn’t tolerate intolerance. You’re the one saying we have to.
The opposite is in fact true. The fascists have breached the social contract of tolerance with their disinformation campaign. If they are not going to follow the agreement, then they are not protected by it. In other words, standing up against the fascists does not make us fascists. We should strategically defend our lives and liberties as needed. To do otherwise would make us complicit in our own destruction.
The fascists have breached the social contract of tolerance with their disinformation campaign
I don’t think there was ever a “social contract” where we agreed that you couldn’t send things through the mail that weren’t socially determined to be “true”, but if we ever did, you’re violating the compact by describing gender reassignment treatment as “lifesaving” when the best evidence on the issue is that it’s neutral at best.
No one is saying that it will be deadly, always. What depriving a trans person from gender affirming care does is make them miserable, drive them towards unhealthy coping mechanism and raises suicidality.
No one is saying that it will be deadly, always. What depriving a trans person from gender affirming care does is make them miserable, drive them towards unhealthy coping mechanism and raises suicidality.
But the care results in no reduction in suicidality.
After adjusting for potential confounders, accessing GAH during early adolescence (aOR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.6, p < .0001), late adolescence (aOR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.4-0.7, p < .0001), or adulthood (aOR = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.7-0.8, p < .0001) was associated with lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation when compared to desiring but never accessing GAH. In post hoc analyses, access to GAH during adolescence (ages 14-17) was associated with lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation (aOR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.6-0.9, p = .0007) when compared to accessing GAH during adulthood.
Okay you’re just straight up lying now. I’m done here, piss off.
This is referred to as the paradox of tolerance. The idea that we have to tolerate intolerance is an incorrect resolution of the paradox. We can solve the paradox by reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty.
In this framing, everyone agrees to tolerate each other. If a group, such as fascists, decide to be intolerant to another group the fascists have broken the social contract of tolerance. The fascists are no longer covered by the protections of the social contract of tolerance and in the case of this disinformation campaign, their speech is not protected.
This is the minimum that freedom loving people should expect from their democracy. We should tolerate everyone, but not tolerate intolerance. Fascists do not have the right to deny groups the fundamental right to exist with their speech.
To be clear, gender affirming care is a collection of life saving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. That Canadian woman’s refusal to spread a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign was a strategic decision to defend life and liberty.
But I’m saying we shouldn’t tolerate intolerance. You’re the one saying we have to.
The opposite is in fact true. The fascists have breached the social contract of tolerance with their disinformation campaign. If they are not going to follow the agreement, then they are not protected by it. In other words, standing up against the fascists does not make us fascists. We should strategically defend our lives and liberties as needed. To do otherwise would make us complicit in our own destruction.
I don’t think there was ever a “social contract” where we agreed that you couldn’t send things through the mail that weren’t socially determined to be “true”, but if we ever did, you’re violating the compact by describing gender reassignment treatment as “lifesaving” when the best evidence on the issue is that it’s neutral at best.
That is just straight up false. Stop spreading hateful misinformation.
Removed by mod
No one is saying that it will be deadly, always. What depriving a trans person from gender affirming care does is make them miserable, drive them towards unhealthy coping mechanism and raises suicidality.
The evidence is neutral at best, yeah?
There’s also a meta review, that, while saying that more rigorous research is needed, says
So, stop lying.
But the care results in no reduction in suicidality.
Okay you’re just straight up lying now. I’m done here, piss off.