Three thinkers on when we should call out harmful speech
What speech is harmful, how do we know, and what do we do if we find out?
31 August, 2020
Photo by Michelle Ding on Unsplash
- Modern debates over free speech rage on the internet, but what do experts say?
- Some think it is easy to go too far in limiting public debate by offending parties, others argue limits are part of normal discourse.
- While the debate isn't settled, these thinkers can give you some starting points for your next discussion.
<p>If you've been online in the past few weeks, you've probably come across at least one person discussing free speech. The debate over if it is <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/30/20879720/what-is-cancel-culture-explained-history-debate" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">threatened</a>, who has <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/free-speech-crisis-campus-isnt-real/591394/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">it</a>, who needs <a href="http://columbiajournal.org/in-defense-of-cancel-culture/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">it</a>, what it is, and what form it should take goes back long before the days of social media and the 24-hour news <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">cycle</a>. </p><p>Recently, the debate over what limits are being put on public discourse is the center of attention, with a great deal of focus placed on the question of what conversations are worth having. Some, including the signers of the famous <a href="https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Harper's Letter</a>, fear that free speech is threatened. Their detractors fear this is a front to keep the traditionally marginalized from expressing their <a href="https://inthesetimes.com/article/free-speech-labor-journalism-harpers-coddling-elites" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">concerns</a>. Previous controversies have centered around who gets to speak at what institutions and if the withdraw of an invitation to <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">speak</a>, or the denial of it to begin <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">with</a>, is a kind of <a href="https://ncac.org/censorship-news-articles/the-case-against-de-platforming" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">censorship</a>. </p><p>But, are any of these concerns valid? What do experts on argumentation have to say about these issues? Today, we'll consider three experts' stances on when speech can be harmful, when people shouldn't be given a platform, and when we should grit our teeth and suffer their opinion.</p>
Stance #1: Meta- argumentative allegations are a tool that should be used sparingly.
<p>Dr. Hugh Breakey of Griffith University lays out his case in the essay <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-020-09538-8" target="_blank">"'That's Unhelpful, Harmful and Offensive!' Epistemic and Ethical Concerns with Meta-argument Allegations</a><em>."</em></p><p>Breakey argues that "meta-arguments," statements that focus on external features of an argument rather than an argument's soundness, can be used to critique arguments by pointing out the harm that an argument might cause. </p><p>As an example, imagine that somebody tells an armed mob without evidence that grocers are the cause of a crippling food shortage. Pointing out that this argument might cause harm provides an ethical good (the speaker might not make the argument now that they know harm may come of it) and an epistemic good (the argument might be improved or abandoned if the weakness of it is pointed out). While meta-arguments aren't good or bad by themselves, this example shows how they can be used positively. </p><p>However, other times critiques that seem clear to one party in an argument can seem groundless to others. In these cases, meta-arguments can derail discussion rather than clarify it. Worse, it can be impossible to get back on track after these allegations are made. </p><p>Big Think reached out to Dr. Breakey, who offered this elaboration on his position:</p><p><br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"When we call out what someone says in an argument as offensive, harmful or unhelpful, it can feel like we are applying an impartial standard. We're setting down sensible, objective rules within which constructive civil debate can occur. But the reality is that our judgments about such matters are likely to be as controversial and contestable—and, unfortunately, influenced by emotional and cognitive biases—as our views on the original topic of the debate. Reasonable people can disagree on the risks of harm created by speech, the ethical weight that should be given to those harms, where the moral responsibility for those harms properly lies, and how these factors relate to the importance of freely discussing the original topic of the debate. These are all complicated and difficult questions, and will be answered differently by people with different political views and life experiences. As a result, we need to exercise great caution in leveling allegations of harm and offence during an argument. Otherwise, the very differences that led to the original debate—and that make that debate worthwhile—will be used to foreclose it."</p><p><br></p><p>Given these concerns, the essay ends with a call for "argumentational tolerance" that is weary of using meta-argumentative allegations in general, but is open to using them when the speech in question is obviously harmful, such as instances of hate speech or calls to violence.</p>Stance #2: Platforms lend credence, and some people shouldn't be given that.
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0f1b4a4cef6cb4f8c278306a20dd49ed"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qjDLux9EXCE?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Another stance is taken by Professor Neil Levy of The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics<strong>, </strong>in their essay <a href="https://aeon.co/ideas/why-no-platforming-is-sometimes-a-justifiable-position" target="_blank">"Why no-platforming is sometimes a justifiable position."</a></p><p>They agree with many others that free speech is valuable and that good-faith arguments are generally good. However, they find the idea of deplatforming for meta-argumentative reasons more compelling than others might. </p><p>In Dr. Levy's essay, they ask you to imagine that a university has invited a speaker who rejects climate change's existence to speak on that topic. While that position is bunk, the very act of being invited to speak by a prestigious university grants credence to what the speaker has to say, which cannot easily be refuted by other, better arguments. </p><p>Things like being invited to speak by a prestigious school or having seemingly valid credentials can be "higher-order" evidence in favor of their position. Higher-order evidence, Dr. Levy explains, influences how we evaluate arguments. Higher-order evidence in favor of our position can make us more confident in it, while opposing evidence can lead us to moderate our stances. </p><p>However, Dr. Levy points out the difficulty of countering higher-order evidence, or the legitimacy it confers, by rational argument alone. They further out the usefulness of attacking the credibility of the speaker's bunk arguments by focusing not on the argument but on the higher-order evidence's validity. Here, ad-hominem attacks and meta- argumentative critiques of their speaking at all can remove the higher-order evidence. Deplatforming, often critiqued as the suppression of speech, can also be useful, as it prevents a person from being granted the legitimacy that a speaking invitation can bring.</p><p>There is a difference between this position and that of Dr. Breakey. Dr. Levy is more concerned with matters of fact rather than debates over what constitutes acceptable discourse. However, this stance is clearly more open to the idea of using meta-argumental allegations to keep speech non-harmful and productive than other common positions are. </p>Stance #3: Deciding what speech is “acceptable” is a fundamental aspect of public discourse.
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e6e7eae4f8711c1ba0aed143bbfd5098"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0foSXKph9wI?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Lastly, we have the stance described by the University of Illinois Professor Nicholas Grossman in an essay titled "<a href="https://arcdigital.media/free-speech-defenders-dont-understand-the-critique-against-them-4ed8327c0879" target="_blank">Free Speech Defenders Don't Understand the Critique Against Them</a>."</p><p>Professor Grossman considers the current debate around "free speech" and suggests that the debate is really over what we consider socially acceptable these days—a discussion which we've had before and will have again.</p><p>As he points out, most people would agree that there is nothing wrong with deciding that Holocaust denial is odious. Furthermore, they would likely also agree that private actors can (and should) use their capacities to limit the space available for a Holocaust denier to speak in. Most people would also hardly shed a tear if the denier faced social consequences for their speech. However, not everybody agrees on giving the same treatment to J.K. Rowling in light of her statements concerning transgender individuals.<br> <br> Professor Grossman argues that our current discussions are really about where the line of "acceptability" is. Are people, like Rowling, crossing that line when they imply transgender women are not women? If so, what social consequences should they face, if any? What else might be on the other side of that line now? How do we know? The line has moved before, consider how common the public use of racial slurs was in the past, is the idea of moving the line now any different? </p><p>They agree with Dr. Breakey in thinking that these are big questions without easy answers. However, Professor Grossman suggests that, in determining what speech is socially acceptable, these discussions can, and must, take place for debate to move forward. In contrast, Dr. Breakey suggests that these concerns can derail other debates if not used properly. </p>How can I use this?
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d1134bccc91f9e731c06e8170e010c5b"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0w5Zg9kKg3A?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Perhaps the most obvious take away is that all three of these thinkers agree that certain speakers, notably those inciting violence or those deliberately trying to cause harm using racial slurs, can (and perhaps should) be challenged. It suggests a semblance of agreement exists around the idea that some speech does harm and that this legitimizes certain follow up actions to prevent the speech.</p><p>This idea is nothing new; even John Stuart Mill agreed with the idea of censoring speech that could cause immediate <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9IM3ZKNMCk" target="_blank">violence</a>. </p><p>The three thinkers considered here also all agree on the importance of open debate in general. None of them are suggesting that you should be arrested for giving an unpopular opinion. They all argue in favor of using reasoned, respectful debate to advance our understanding of various issues. </p><p>However, they disagree on how easy it is to know what is respectful debate and what is speech worthy of critique, deplatforming, and social consequence, and what to do when that line is crossed. While the three do seem to be concerned with slightly different scales, Professor Grossman focuses on societal debates while Dr. Levy focuses on institutional level problems, the differences endure, and each stance can be applied at various scales.</p><p>Despite this lack of agreement, they all provide strong arguments for their position and a launchpad for further debate. Though, we might need to already agree on a few points before that debate can even happen.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Straight millennials are becoming less accepting of LGBTQ people
The surprising results come from a new GLAAD survey.
24 June, 2019
Joe Ciciarelli / Unsplash
- The survey found that 18- to 34-year-old non-LGBTQ Americans reported feeling less comfortable around LGBTQ people in a variety of hypothetical situations.
- The attitudes of older non-LGBTQ Americans have remained basically constant over the past few years.
- Overall, about 80 percent of Americans support equal rights for LGBTQ people.
<p><br></p></div>
<p>A new survey from GLAAD suggests that young, non-LGBT Americans are now less comfortable around LGBT people compared to recent years. Surprisingly, these young Americans (18- to 34-year-olds) were the only age bracket that reported feeling less comfortable, while attitudes among older non-LGBT Americans have remained basically constant over the past few years.</p><p>The results surprised leaders at GLAAD and The Harris Poll, which together have conducted the survey — "Accelerating Tolerance" — for the past five years.</p><p>"We count on the narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant," John Gerzema, CEO of The Harris Poll, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/24/lgbtq-acceptance-millennials-decline-glaad-survey/1503758001/" target="_blank">told</a> <em>USA TODAY.</em> "These numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis in discrimination." </p><p>The survey asked respondents to rate how comfortable they'd feel in personal situations involving LGBT people, as GLAAD <a href="https://www.glaad.org/blog/glaad%E2%80%99s-2019-accelerating-acceptance-index-results-show-further-decline-lgbtq-acceptance-among" target="_blank">reported</a>:</p><ul><li>More young people ages 18–34 responded that they were "very" or "somewhat" uncomfortable in three personal scenarios including learning a family member is LGBT (36 percent uncomfortable in the 2019 report vs. 29 percent in the 2018 report); learning my doctor is LGBT (34 percent vs. 27 percent); and learning my child had a lesson on LGBT history in their school (39 percent vs. 30 percent).</li></ul><ul><li>About 43 percent of males ages 18–34 reported that they were uncomfortable learning a family member is LGBT (up from 32 percent in 2018) and 42 percent of males ages 18–34 reported that they were uncomfortable learning their child's teacher is LGBT (up from 37 percent in 2018).</li></ul><ul><li>Also, 40 percent of females ages 18–34 reported that they were uncomfortable learning their child had a lesson on LGBT history in school, an increase of 13 percentage points from the previous year's findings.</li></ul><p>"This reflects a continued erosion in comfort among this age group over the past two years," GLAAD reported. "This year, the significant erosion is being driven by females ages 18–34, where comfort levels fell from 64 percent last year to 52 percent this year."</p><p>What explains the shifting attitudes? GLAAD conducted focus groups to identify some of the driving factors, finding two common themes: "newness" of gender politics and discriminatory political rhetoric. </p><p>"They're interfacing with new gender identities and sexual orientations, so that takes a minute to get used to," Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/glaad-survey-young-people-become-less-accepting-of-lgbtq-people-because-of-trump-and-newness-factor" target="_blank">told</a> <em>The Daily Beast.</em> "Then, look at this current administration we're living under, and its culture of hate and discrimination. Those are the two issues at hand here that emerged from the focus groups."</p><p>The results weren't all discouraging: The survey classified about half of all Americans as "allies" of LGBTQ people with high levels of tolerance — the same share as 2017, which Ellis said "is a big deal." Also, for the third consecutive year, about 80 percent of Americans support equal rights for the LGBTQ community.</p><p>Still, Gerzema offered a note of caution: "In this toxic age, tolerance — even among youth — now seems to be parsed out. Nothing today should be taken for granted."</p><p>Over the long term, Ellis hopes the results prove to be an anomaly. "Hopefully this is a two-year blip, until we have a turnover in the administration," she told <em>The Daily Beast.</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Why creating an AI that has free will would be a huge mistake
Giving human rights to a being with unlimited knowledge? Probably not a good idea.
30 May, 2018
Joanna Bryson thinks that people are confusing artificial intelligence with human clones, mostly due to Hollywood movies like Blade Runner and Steven Spielberg's A.I., both of which feature very humanoid beings. Take away the somewhat cuddly ideas the movies have given us about artificial intelligence and you have this: hyper-smart machines with absolutely no limit to their knowledge. She posits that giving artificial intelligence the same rights a human has could result in pretty dire consequences... because AI has already proven that it can pick up negative human characteristics if those characteristics are in the data. Therefore, it's not crazy at all to think that AI could scan all of Twitter in one afternoon and pick up all the negativity we've unloaded there. If it's already proven it's not only capable of making the wrong decision but eventually will make the wrong decision when it comes to data mining and implementation, why even give it the same powers as us in the first place?
More Than Just Sanctuary, Migrants Need Social Citizenship
Social citizenship is both a feeling of belonging and a definable set of commitments and obligations associated with living in a place; it is not second-class national citizenship.
30 August, 2017
Josephine Corral of Tacoma, Washington, puts her head through a large green card replica during a May Day march May 1, 2008 in Seattle, Washington. (Credit: Stephen Brashear/Getty Images)
In 1975, the English author John Berger wrote about the political implications of immigration, at a time when one in seven workers in the factories of Germany and Britain was a male migrant —what Berger called the ‘seventh man’. Today, every seventh person in the world is a migrant.
<p>Migrants are likely to settle in <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/urban-refugees.html" target="_blank">cities</a>. In the United States, <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/09/us-metro-areas-unauthorized-immigrants/" target="_blank">20 cities</a> (accounting for 36 per cent of the total US population in 2014) were home to 65 per cent of the nation’s authorised immigrants and 61 per cent of unauthorised immigrants. In Singapore, migrant workers account for <a href="http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/rapid-growth-singapores-immigrant-population-brings-policy-challenges" target="_blank">20 per cent</a> of the city-state’s population. (Migrants continue to be a significant rural population. In the US, three-quarters of farm workers are <a href="http://www.ncfh.org/uploads/3/8/6/8/38685499/fs-migrant_demographics.pdf" target="_blank">foreign-born</a>.)</p> <p>Scholarship on migration tends to focus normative arguments on the national level, where policy concerning borders and immigration is made. Some prominent political philosophers – including David Miller at Nuffield College, Oxford, and Joseph Carens at the University of Toronto – also <a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/MILITC-3" target="_blank">outline</a> an account of ‘social membership’ in receiving societies. This process unfolds over five to 10 years of work, everyday life and the development of attachments. As Carens <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2003.tb00421.x/abstract" target="_blank">writes</a> in ‘Who Should Get In?’ (2003), after a period of years, any migrant crosses a ‘threshold’ and is no longer a stranger. This human experience of socialization holds true for low-wage and unauthorized migrants, so a receiving society should acknowledge that migrants themselves, not only their economic contributions, are part of that society.</p> <p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODQxMDMwOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjc5NTEyOX0.JZ7IB1lVhfOlD1QvpsWR5pNatcuprfuxdUBQzbryknA/img.jpg?width=980" id="c4164" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e26b86b97ffcdf1c84f88782b43806de" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><br><span style="color: #737d83; font-size: 13px;">Mulberry Street, Little Italy, New York, </span><em style="color: #737d83; font-size: 13px;">c</em><span style="color: #737d83; font-size: 13px;">1900. </span><em style="color: #737d83; font-size: 13px;">Courtesy Wikipedia</em></p> <p>Carens and Miller apply this argument to the moral claims of settled migrants at risk of deportation because they are unauthorised or because the terms of their presence are tightly limited by work contracts. In the US, for example, most of the estimated <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/" target="_blank">11.3 million</a> people who crossed a border without authorisation or are living outside the terms of their original visas have constituted a settled population for the past decade, with families that include an estimated <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/17/children-of-unauthorized-immigrants-represent-rising-share-of-k-12-students/" target="_blank">4 million</a> children who are US citizens by birthright. In <em>The Ethics of Immigration</em> (2013), Carens writes that the prospect of deporting young immigrants from the place where they had lived most of their lives was especially troubling: it is ‘morally wrong to force someone to leave the place where she was raised, where she received her social formation, and where she has her most important human connections’. Miller and Carens concur with the Princeton political theorist Michael Walzer’s view of open-ended guest-worker programmes as ethically problematic. The fiction that such work is temporary and such workers remain foreign obscures the reality that these migrants are also part of the societies in which they live and work, often for many years, and where they deserve protection and opportunities for advancement.</p> <div class="video-callout-placeholder" data-slug="junot-diaz-on-immigration" style="border: 1px solid #ccc;">
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="ANVxwtyC" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="9be87e899047dd31a0f0554f80fdf17a">
<div id="botr_ANVxwtyC_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ANVxwtyC-FvQKszTI.js">
<img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/ANVxwtyC-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview">
</div>
<script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ANVxwtyC-FvQKszTI.js"></script>
</div>
</div> <p>Not all migrants will have access to a process leading to national citizenship or permanent legal residence status, whether this is because they are unauthorised, or their immigration status is unclear, or they are living in a nation that limits or discourages immigration while allowing foreign workers on renewable work permits. If we agree that migration is part of the identity of a society in which low-wage migrants live and work, whether or not this is acknowledged by non-migrants or by higher-status migrants, what would it mean to build on the idea of social membership and consider migrants as social citizens of the place in which they have settled? And what realistic work can the idea of social citizenship do in terms of improving conditions for migrants and supporting policy development?</p> <p>Social citizenship is both a feeling of belonging and a definable set of commitments and obligations associated with living in a place; it is not second-class national citizenship. The place where one’s life is lived might have been chosen in a way that the nation of one’s birth was not; for a Londoner or a New Yorker, local citizenship can be a stronger identity than national citizenship. Migrants live in cities with a history of welcoming immigrants, in cities that lack this history, and also in cities where national policy discourages immigration. Considering how to ensure that social citizenship extends to migrants so that they get to belong, to contribute, and to be protected is a way to frame ethical and practical questions facing urban policymakers.</p> <p>Considering migrants as social citizens of the cities in which they settle is related to but not the same as the idea of the city as a ‘sanctuary’ for migrants. Throughout the US, local officials have designated ‘sanctuary cities’ for undocumented immigrants subject to deportation under policies announced by the federal government in February 2017. This contemporary interpretation of an ancient concept refers to a policy of limited local cooperation with federal immigration officials, often associated with other policies supporting a city’s migrant population. Canadian officials use the term ‘sanctuary city’ similarly, to refer to local protections and potentially also to limited cooperation with border-control authorities. In Europe, the term ‘city of sanctuary’ tends to refer to efforts supporting local refugees and coordinated advocacy for refugee admission and rights. These local actions protecting migrants are consistent with a practical concept of social citizenship in which civic history and values, and interests such as being a welcoming, diverse or growing city, correspond to the interests of migrants. However, the idea of ‘sanctuary’ suggests crisis: an urgent need for a safe place to hide. To become social citizens, migrants need more from cities than sanctuary.</p> <div class="video-callout-placeholder" data-slug="mary-beard-on-ancient-rome-and-immigration" style="border: 1px solid #ccc;">
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="wGkkofUA" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="59795909e31702dd232dc9b4a9fde268">
<div id="botr_wGkkofUA_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/wGkkofUA-FvQKszTI.js">
<img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/wGkkofUA-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview">
</div>
<script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/wGkkofUA-FvQKszTI.js"></script>
</div>
</div> <p>Local policies that frame social citizenship in terms that apply to settled migrants should go beyond affirming migrants’ legal rights and helping them to use these rights, although this is certainly part of a practical framework. Social citizenship, as a concept that should apply to migrants and non-migrants alike, on the basis of being settled into a society, can build on international human rights law, but can be useful in jurisdictions where human rights is not the usual reference point for considering how migrants belong to, contribute to, and are protected by a society.</p> <p>What can a city expect or demand of migrants as social citizens? Mindful that the process of social integration usually takes more than one generation, it would not be fair to expect or demand that migrants integrate into a new society on an unrealistic timetable. Most migrants are adults, and opportunities to belong, to contribute, and to be protected should be available to them, as well as to the next generation. Migrants cannot be expected to take actions that could imperil them or their families. For example, while constitutionally protected civil rights in the US extend to undocumented immigrants, using these rights (by identifying themselves publicly, for example) can bring immigrants to the attention of federal authorities, a reality or fear that might constrain their ability to participate in civic life.</p> <p>In his novel <em>Exit West</em> (2017), Mohsin Hamid offers a near-future fictional version of a political philosopher’s ‘earned amnesty’ proposal. Under the ‘time tax’, newer migrants to London pay a decreasing ‘portion of income and toil’ toward social welfare programmes for longstanding residents, and have sweat-equity opportunities to achieve home ownership by working on infrastructure construction projects (the ‘London Halo’). Today, the nonfictional citizens of Berlin are debating how to curb escalating rents so that the city remains open to lower-wage residents, including internal and transnational migrants. A robust concept of social citizenship that includes migrants who have begun the process of belonging to a city, and those who should be acknowledged as already belonging, will provide a necessary framework for understanding contemporary urban life in destination cities.<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODQxMDMwOS9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNTMwMDE3MX0.dJtaaTztcZ7B4WjHItz_iiQo8HsPKmLzN7i5UUNPhKI/img.gif?width=980" id="b3a87" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="65d812bc191059bed839b1c79218de8c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></p> <p>--</p> <p>This article was originally published at <a href="https://aeon.co" target="_blank">Aeon</a> and has been republished under Creative Commons.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
The Sexual Predator Myth: Once Visited on Gay Men, It Now Hurts Trans Women
There's a hidden hypocrisy within bathroom laws based on biological sex.
01 May, 2017
Your gender is your sense of self — it is located very much above the waist. Legislation that compels transgender people to use bathrooms that align with their biological sex, rather than their gender identity, are not really championing public safety. In fact, there is a hidden hypocrisy in those laws that makes the most vulnerable among us markedly less safe. According to Dr. Elijah Nealy, there is a dangerous myth that perpetuates the trans bathroom debate: that trans women are sexual predators (the data does not support this claim, and we heard the same story 25 years ago about gay men). This myth implies that transgender women have ulterior motives when using the restroom, when in reality, like every other human being, they go there to relieve a simple biological need. Insisting that bathroom laws are anchored to biological sex places trans men and women in difficult positions. States with these laws in place would have Dr. Nealy, an openly trans man, use the women's room. It also puts trans women in a very dangerous spotlight by forcing them to enter and use the men's room. Perpetuating false myths and supporting discriminatory laws only serves to invalidate the existence of an already marginalized community who are—whether others like it or not—very real. Elijah Nealy is the author of Transgender Children and Youth: Cultivating Pride and Joy with Families in Transition.
<p><a href="https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780393711394"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODMzOTMzMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMTgwNzIzMH0.4ow5iimxUglB9U0TVjLw1lPmEvW8tx6Cho2DPeijqTY/img.jpg?width=980" id="df863" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6f1116c950e6f09854fc369a73f613cb" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></a></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
