It's just a shitty experience.
Regardless, you didn't answer my question: "If Babylon Bee makes a joke about trans people how is that removing trans voices from the platform?"
People voluntarily leaving is not removing voices.
This is naive. If a Klan bar doesn't literally throw out Black people, they still are preventing Black people from being there by making the environment so unpleasant they cannot remain.
"Help Help I'm being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
I propose Twitter bans anybody who "berates" a politician. If we don't do that then Twitter is allowing the environment to be too unpleasant for one the most marginalized groups out there.
Why would my plan be bad, but yours good?
Just because there is an environment that is too unpleasant for some people to remain in, doesn't mean that environment should change to conform to the wants of that person. People who are sensitive to sound can't go to some loud bar and demand everybody stop making noise. (Well they could demand it, but nobody will care). The bar isn't forcing the person to leave by not lowering the volume.
Additionally, congresspeople are public figures - being satirized is part of the social contract when you become a public figure.
And congresspeople have power. Lots of power. Saying that an average congressperson and an average trans person are equal is just not true.
If you pulled out another minority group with little power, your rule might be more agreeable.
…why do you think politicians have bodyguards?
> They aren't typically dealing with a healthcare system that is actively hostile to them.
Not doing unnecessary cosmetic surgery is not “actively hostile”.
B) For some trans people, the surgery is necessary from a quality of life perspective and a reduction of dysphoria.
C) It varies by country. In the US, the medical system is actively hostile to everyone (but especially trans people). In the UK, the requirements to just get HRT as a legal adult are insane.
Congressmen are attacked all the time. They have assassination attempts all the time. The average trans person doesn't need protection, but the average congressman does.
>They aren't typically dealing with a healthcare system that is actively hostile to them. They don't have high levels of homelessness, abuse, and suicide.
Healthcare is absolutely not hostile to them. Doctors are being threatened with firing (or may have been fired?) if they don't use the correct pronouns.
I do agree that trans people have higher levels of homelessness, abuse and suicide, but I don't think it is relevant.
>Additionally, congresspeople are public figures - being satirized is part of the social contract when you become a public figure.
Having a public social media account makes you a public person in a sense. If you don't want public attention don't make a public account.
>And congresspeople have power. Lots of power. Saying that an average congressperson and an average trans person are equal is just not true.
Seeing how a trans person was able to get a company that has something like 10% of the internet going through them (Cloudflare) to remove a site I would say trans people have a massive amount of power.
>If you pulled out another minority group with little power, your rule might be more agreeable.
I think we should have consistent rules regardless of how much power a person has. Should politicians not have the right to a trial because they are powerful? Of course not. Rules should be uniform.
While I'm mixed on the ban, this is a mischaracterization of what they were banned for. They were banned for misgendering a specific person not questioning transgenderism. There is a significant distinction between questioning an idea and targeting a specific person.
There are great yard sticks to this question in theory "I tolerate everything except intolerance. Your right to swing your arms stops when they come into contact with someone's nose." In practice though it's always easy - on every side - to pick out the things we don't like and decide that they're violent or intolerant.
Everyone is tolerant of the things they like - and they ask everyone to join them in that if they like those things or not.
If this was some random trans Rachel from Boring, Oregon, I'd call this a clear case of bullying and say the ban was 100% justified and shouldn't remain, but I think there is a much, much higher bar when the target is a government official or celebrity. But that doesn't change the fact that the entire point was singling out an individual for mockery.
I think a more reasonable argument is that people should be allowed to present themselves how they want without prejudice, but that there are still some undeniable facts about the world. Clearly there are people who want to have this discussion and silencing one side of the discussion doesn’t resolve it. It just causes the tension to fester. Get it out in the open and the truth will come out.