I realize this is old now... but the Events & Guest Speakers thing is utterly fatuous. It says when it comes to external speakers think about gender identity the same way you might think about race & faith. 1/ https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1140148804873871360 …
-
-
But the idea that one should mitigate the risk of organizing an atheist talk, beyond the normal demands of basic courtesy, is ridiculous. But why is this different from gender identity? It's not different in any obvious way that I can see.
Show this thread -
Also what about political identity? People experience political commitment as central to their identity. If you rob somebody of their Marxism, for example, it can precipitate a crisis (I've seen it happen). So do we have to tiptoe around political commitments? If not, why not?
Show this thread -
You might say something to the effect that political commitments are chosen whereas gender identity isn't chosen. Well, first, it isn't clear that political commitments are chosen. But even if they were, so what? Why would that make a moral difference?
Show this thread -
Bottom line, if you make ontological & metaphysical claims then you should expect these to be challenged. You don't have the right to a hermetically sealed chamber where your sense of yourself is safe from outside threats.
Show this thread -
You have the negative right to live your life free from interference, harassment, threats, violence, etc. You do not have the positive right to force people to accept your ontological and metaphysical claims, and to view you precisely as you wished to be viewed.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.