The article you posted doesn't really support calling him "outright anti-trans". From the article you used as support:
Twitter’s modified policy is a step back for the platform, especially when Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube don’t even maintain the same protections for trans people that Twitter once had. Last year, GLAAD gave each of these platforms fairly low scores in regard to LGBTQ safety, privacy, and expression but noted that Twitter and TikTok were the only two platforms out of the bunch that had specific policies against deadnaming and misgendering trans users.
So now the only major platform that has this policy is TikTok...famously 'woke' (silly term these days) companies like Google don't even seem to have this policy. The policy was only in place for the past few years at Twitter, so this in fact seems like its just a reversion to the mean rather than some kind of direct attack on trans rights.
The final paragraph makes clear that he is pull back specific things that Twitter used to offer to trans people:
> Twitter hasn’t completely pulled protections for trans users, however. Its Hateful Conduct Policy still explicitly prohibits attacking others based on “race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease,” but the choice to intentionally remove all mention of misgendering and deadnaming seems like a calculated jab at the trans community.
I am not an LGBT+ person, but I also do not support targeted harassment of various segments of society just because they are different.
Musk has many issues, but what is the point of bringing his grudge with Trans? The rocket is a great success and in the grand scale of things is worth the ego grandstanding. The man has done nothing illegal and has accomplished a lot amazing things. Congrats to SpaceX, Elon, the Americans and Humanity.
What good is freedom of thought and speech if one cannot exercise it? I probably drank the old american koolaid and have not yet had my sip of the new one.
He has his freedom of speech! So did the person you're replying to. That's what the old American freedom of speech meant: you can say dumb things and other people can say that what you said was dumb.
The new koolaid is "I can say dumb things and if anybody calls me on it, I'm being oppressed." That has nothing to do with freedom of speech, there's no government here.
Sounds like you've been drinking plenty of the new koolaid.
> I probably drank the old american koolaid and have not yet had my sip of the new one.
The "old american koolaid" is to let your neighbor do whatever they please as long as "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" (Thomas Jefferson). Trans people aren't hurting anybody, and it's a travesty that one of our major political parties has made demonizing trans people into a wedge issue as part of a manufactured culture war.
The three main talking points here are (1) mtf in female sports, (2) mtf in women’s only physical spaces, and (3) children undergoing irreversible operations that they may later regret. The first two indeed involve a co flick of interest, granted not one that’s generally physically hurtful.
As the parent of two daughters I am not sure I would be super supportive of MtF in female sports at a competitive level if it actually occurred to my family. It would probably feel unfair to my daughters. But regardless, I don't support harassment of transgender people as Elon Musk now allows on Twitter. To me these are separate things.
Being permitted to 'misgender' is relevant to criticizing policies that allow males to compete in women's and girl's sports.
If you're citing one of the many examples of when this has happened, but are compelled to use 'she' rather than 'he' to refer to the male athlete, then it rather dilutes the point being made.
It depends on the point of view from which such criticism is being made.
Someone who holds a belief that trans-identifying males are women, but considers that they should be excluded from women's sports because of the long-lasting pubertal effects of testosterone, would likely have no issue with referring to one of these males as 'she'.
However, someone who doesn't believe that that such males can be women, and that this is the primary reason why they shouldn't be eligible to compete in women's sports, is more likely to use 'he' in reference to one of these males, as it reflects their underlying philosophical view on the issue.
I guess from my point of view, I do not care much if someone born a male now identifies as a women if it isn't affecting me. They have the freedom to do so. There are segments who have taken to misgendering them on purpose as a form of harassment and I think that is wrong.
I view this argument as analogous to someone is trying to justify slurring other minorities. Why slur them? Just treat them as people who are just trying to get through life and all its challenges.
Also all this focus on slurring a specific minority makes those doing the slurring seem mean, non-credible and non-compassionate to their fellow human beings. If someone starts slurring another minority, I will immediate dismiss anything they say next because they are showing they harbor hate - it isn't a rational discussion anymore, all facts are going to be distorted, things that lead to cognitive dissonance are going to be dismissed, and my motivations will be questioned. Who has time for that?
Twitter's rule against 'misgendering' didn't just apply to people who were engaging in harassment though, it applied to everyone, and led to many campaigners for women's rights being banned from the platform.
One example is Meghan Murphy, a high-profile Canadian feminist. She was discussing the case of a trans-identifying male who had sued several female beauticians - who offered their services solely to women - for refusing to do a Brazilian wax, which for this individual would have involved the handling of male genitalia. She referred to this male as 'him', and as a result was banned from Twitter for about four years (with her ban only being lifted after Musk's purchase of the company).
So on one side we have a trans-identifying male who was using the Canadian legal system to try to punish women for refusing to touch his penis and testicles. On the other side, a feminist writer who referred to this male as 'he' and 'him' while criticizing him for this. In applying their 'misgendering' rule, Twitter took the side of the former and sanctioned the latter.
By removing this rule, Twitter is allowing feminists like Murphy to speak freely about issues such as this on their platform.
I know about that case as a Canadian and it doesn’t require misgendering to discuss accurately. No one is forcing you or her to pretend she isn’t trans.
Everyone agrees that this individual is trans-identifying. The issue is that under Twitter's previous rules, they were compelling gender-critical feminists to pretend that this male is a woman, under the threat of being banned from the platform.
Not just feminists either. Most people balk at phrases like 'her penis and testicles', even if they would normally play along with the fiction of this male being a woman.
It really does highlight the absurdity and dishonesty that is inherent in the belief system of gender identity, in that people are essentially being forced to say things that they don't really believe.
> The issue is that under Twitter's previous rules, they were compelling gender-critical feminists to pretend that this male is a woman, under the threat of being banned from the platform.
No-one is denying that Yaniv is trans-identifying. What gender-critical feminists (and others) are denying are his claims of being a woman.
The question is whether social media platforms should compel their users to tell lies when discussing people such as this. Which is what anyone who holds the view that this individual is a man would be doing if they are forced to refer to him as 'she' or 'her'.
> Here is a great article that does not deadname her nor misgender her while also talking about the case accurately
Yes but the fact that some newspaper editors choose to immerse themselves, their writers and their readers in this fiction doesn't mean that everyone else should be compelled to do the same.
You can see the other currently downvoted comment.
It's like a religion that feels it needs to insert "God is great" or "in his divine wisdom" into every sentence, just to make sure nobody questions their piety.
I think a lot of articles and tweets are focusing on the failure incorrectly. Their views are coloured by wanting to see Elon fail because they don't like his views. This was at least a muted success and not an outright failure and it is just a stepping stone.
I was trying to say, yes, Elon has pretty bad views these days, but this is still at least a semi-success, not a set back or failure.
SpaceX is successful despite of Elon Musk, not because of Elon Musk. SpaceX spends a lot of energy keeping Musks's insanity and emotional outbursts at bay. Tesla has also learned how to manage Musk, though not quite as successfully as SpaceX. Twitter is still figuring it out, but I'm sure that they too will learn how to manage Musk.
I think it's useful to compare Musk with fire. Fire is useful, if controlled. Fire can be very damaging if not controlled. You have to control Musk while giving him the semblance that he's the one in control. Kudos to those who've successfully been able to pull that off.
As I said, fire is useful. Vision is definitely one of Elon's strengths, along with enough knowledge to understand feasibility. Execution doesn't appear to be one of his strengths, but he's made good hires for people who also recognize Elon's strengths and weaknesses and can successfully manage him.
> but what is the point of bringing his grudge with Trans?
Let's not pretend like he just has a "grudge" with trans folks. It goes many orders of magnitude beyond that. Perhaps he was not, and maybe he even still is not a transphobe, but right now he's tweeting like a full-blown transphobic maniac on Twitter. [1] That's a severely negative personality trait. Discriminating against a group of people simply because of the way they were born goes against the fundamental values of the Western society, freedoms, and should be criticized harshly at any avenue. It's relevant here, not because of Musk's speech (which I firmly believe every person is entitled to), but because Musk is an influential figure who contributes so much thought, inspiration, motivation and soft/hard influence to the world that it must be noted he's actively acting like an unhinged transphobe. This can be harmful to people and too much influence from a transphobic personality can be harmful for the society, in turn. Just like, a lot of influence from good people is good for society, a lot of influence from bad people is bad for society. It's worth noting.
[1] We saw, in many instances not only Elon Musk but many other people exaggerating their personalities and beliefs on Twitter.
> What good is freedom of thought and speech if one cannot exercise it?
This is what I describe as the “worse is better” model of freedom. As if the only way we can measure freedom is by counting how many extremely awful things occur in the world and concluding that more awful things is a clear indicator that we have more freedom. Is this a uniquely American concept?
The underlying theme is that a non-optimal system that nevertheless minimizes chances of tyranny and/or violence is better than say a society ruled by philosopher kings. So it's not so much that "more awful things is a clear indicator that we have more freedom", but rather that a system that takes it upon itself to stamp out "more awful things" (per whose definition?) will ultimately diminish freedom for all, and various "awful things" are certain to follow.
It is a matter that is still subject to debate. What is your solution?
The dichotomy isn’t that we either laud the amount of bad things happening or stamp out freedom with tyrannical government. That’s precisely the ludicrous “worse is better” model I was criticizing.
And I’m fairly aware of Popper. I largely share his views, particularly those in The Open Society and Its Enemies and The Logic of Scientific Discovery. I don’t think he would point to, for instance, high murder rates as an indicator of freedom in a society or a preponderance of pseudoscientific theories as an indicator of freedom in a scientific community.
Of course not "lauding the amount of bad things". Rather we learn to live with some non-optimal outcomes as the price of preventing worst outcomes. Our system does not, and is not designed to, select the best, and sometimes very problematic individuals make a scene, but it denies the possibility of that becoming a permanent state of affairs.
"Yes I know Musk is bad and I'm not bad, see I'm not bad because I mention Musk is bad, I'm not one of them. That being said it was a nice rocket launch"
I think that article might be a little over-the-top. As mentioned in the article, Twitter has every protection that Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube have. In addition, Twitter's "Hateful Conduct Policy still explicitly prohibits attacking others based on “sexual orientation, gender, gender identity".
I think the outrage is Twitter moving from the head of the progressive pack to inline with everyone else. Since there isn't really an alternative to Twitter for the business world, I'd rather it did it's best to be 'average', not overly conservative or liberal.
Ignoring anti trans behavior by powerful people is default approval. I’m not saying everyone needs to include a disclaimer in every comment but you’re out of line for suggesting this is off topic and you should reflect on yourself for-why you’re so offended seeing people advocating for the rights of groups Musk is repressing.
I'm sorry to be pulled into commenting on a Great Culture War issue in a space thread, but this is really unfair framing.
When someone, or a group refuses to ban something, that doesn't mean they support it.
Just because the United States allows literal Nazis to speak about anything they want does not mean the United States supports Nazis, or is anti-Semitic.
The exact same principle is true of Twitter. If you allow people to post anti-trans rhetoric, that does not in any way mean you are anti-trans.
The last paragraph of the article shows how it is an outlier in terms of which groups can be targeted with harassment:
"Twitter hasn’t completely pulled protections for trans users, however. Its Hateful Conduct Policy still explicitly prohibits attacking others based on “race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease,” but the choice to intentionally remove all mention of misgendering and deadnaming seems like a calculated jab at the trans community."
Yes, and that was what that line said before, too. The change removed a specific call-out for misgendering, and deadnaming. There were no specific call-outs for anything else.
Is this a targeted jab? I have no idea, but it certainly doesn't make someone outright anti-Trans, particularly when the hateful conduct policy continues to ban dehumanization based on gender identity.
Before:
> Slurs and Tropes
> We prohibit targeting others with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.In some cases, such as (but not limited to) severe, repetitive usage of slurs, or racist/sexist tropes where the context is to harass or intimidate others, we may require Tweet removal. In other cases, such as (but not limited to) moderate, isolated usage where the context is to harass or intimidate others, we may limit Tweet visibility as further described below.
> Dehumanization
> We prohibit the dehumanization of a group of people based on their religion, caste, age, disability, serious disease, national origin, race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
---
After:
> Slurs and Tropes
> We prohibit targeting others with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. In some cases, such as (but not limited to) severe, repetitive usage of slurs, or racist/sexist tropes where the context is to harass or intimidate others, we may require Tweet removal. In other cases, such as (but not limited to) moderate, isolated usage where the context is to harass or intimidate others, we may limit Tweet visibility as further described below.
> Dehumanization
> We prohibit the dehumanization of a group of people based on their religion, caste, age, disability, serious disease, national origin, race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
Referring to a male as 'he' isn't really in the same ballpark as throwing around racial slurs and so on.
When applied to a male who calls himself a woman, it's merely a philosophical disagreement over whether said male can transform himself to female simply by decree.
I think SpaceX fooled a lot of people (myself included) that Elon was some kind of genius of visionary. But given everything he has done and said and everything about his past that has come to light I C think it should now be clear that SpaceX is a success in spite of Elon not because of him.
Whoever is actually running the show has effectively built an insulating wall around Elon to limit his influence, especially from day-to-day operations.
A few months ago there was an unverified account of this from an alleged SpaceX intern. I can’t say it’s true but it certainly rings true.
We’ve seen from Twitter he’s not much of a businessman (the deal he got himself into was terrible) and not he’s talking about software many of us here realize just how clueless he is about Tech.
With SpaceX not many of us knew much about rocketry so you know what they say: in the valley of the blind the one eyed man is king.
27 of 33 engines fired. Performance was sub-nominal. When it was time for separation the vehicle did multiple clearly unplanned flips (during all of this the broadcast was talking about how great of a success this was, though the employees had quieted significantly knowing this was not going well). Add that Elon was looking pretty grim.
Making it clear of the tower seems like a remarkably low bar, so if that really was the measure of success, this thing is going to be ready for missions in about three decades. Like what an incredibly low accomplishment that would be.
And of course I feel overwhelmingly certain SpaceX doesn't consider this a success. The face-saving they put out for the sycophants to echo doesn't match the reality that this test proved extraordinarily little.
This article focuses on the failure and everyone is focused on the failure. I am saying that this is because many people don't understand that this is actually a success. A lot of people tend to take glee in things failing for Musk because of his views now, but this isn't really a failure, it is just a muted success.
I am woke now because I don't support allowing harassment of others? This is the first time anyone has ever called me woke.
