The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Our Heavenly Father Made Us — MALE or FEMALE — NOT Neither and NOT Both" Sign Draws "Hate Speech" Complaints
From Lansing State Journal (Rachel Greco) (paywalled):
The banner on display goes beyond "derogatory" messages he's seen displayed on the property in recent years, [a neighbor] said. When free speech is threatening, it shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment, he said.
"It's (the property owners) First Amendment right to say some things but there are some things that go beyond a person's First Amendment rights," [he] said. "The First Amendment doesn't protect hate speech." …
The banner on Spalding's property makes the area feel less welcoming and unsafe, [another neighbor] said.
"The Groesbeck neighborhood is a really beautiful neighborhood and it's a great atmosphere for young families," she said. "I know that they have the right to freedom of religion but that doesn't mean they have the freedom to perpetuate a state of hate towards a vulnerable community. I wouldn't blame potential homeowners who look somewhere else."
Fortunately, government officials seem to know and follow the First Amendment law here:
"While we don't necessarily agree with the views on the sign, we have to respect the property owner's First Amendment rights and we have to acknowledge the limits of our ordinance regulations," [Lansing Township Supervisor Maggie] Sanders said.
Same with another neighbor:
[The homeowner's] message is "anti-liberation, it's anti-LGBTQ, anti-neighborhood feeling," [the neighbor] said, but displaying it on his own property is [his] right.
"I live there, I'm gay and I work in social justice issues and he has every right to put whatever he wants on this sign," [the neighbor] said. "It's his property."
For more on there not being a "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment, see this post, and also this short video:
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Imagine if someone tried to display that sign in his door room window at UCLA! I'll bet the state officials there wouldn't let the First Amendment stand in their way.
*dorm room
Some of the most outrageous examples of government oppression are the completely hypothetical ones.
'member chalking on sidewalks at universities, banned but never ever enforced until a (confused) politically incorrect statement was written?
Good times!
"Our Heavenly Father Made Us — MALE or FEMALE — NOT Neither and NOT Both" Sign Draws "Hate Speech" Complaints
Opinions will obviously differ on the Heavenly Father thing. But the interesting question is whether it can be hateful to say what is true. I suppose "You're ugleeee !" said to an ugly person might indeed be hateful, but does anyone know whether those who are big on "Hate Speech" consider that truth is a defense to an accusation of hatefulness ?
I say that - religion aside - the alleged "hate speech" is (mostly) true because I interpret "Us" to refer to humans, even though I believe that the Heavenly Father is supposed to have made all the animals, and some of them can certainly be "both" - aka hermaphrodite.
Human hermaphrodites (ie "boths") have not yet been discovered, though there is a very small number of folk who make an approach to it. But there is a very small number of human "neithers" - but very small.
So small that it would be very surprising if there were any in the Groesbeck neighborhood of Lansing. But in Michigan as a whole, maybe.
Opinions will obviously differ on the Heavenly Father thing. But the interesting question is whether it can be hateful to say what is true.
Except that it isn't true. You even say so yourself later. "very small" numbers of intersex people isn't zero. (~0.02% according to what I could find quickly)
I suppose "You're ugleeee !" said to an ugly person might indeed be hateful, but does anyone know whether those who are big on "Hate Speech" consider that truth is a defense to an accusation of hatefulness ?
You're a moron. Is that being true a defense against an accusation of hate speech?
Thank you for your interesting comments. Without being 100% confident, I detected arched eyebrows and a contemptuous tone in your last sentence so I interpret it as firmly asserting that a true statement can definitely be "Hate Speech."
Is that canonical ? Is this commonly accepted among "Hate Speech" aficionados - truth is irrelevant, only the "Hate" content is relevant ?
I understand of course that some true things can be nasty, and that it can sometimes be rude to say them, but "Hate Speech" is an asserted category of speech that some, even many, folk say ought to be banned, not merely tut-tutted at.
I just wanted to be clear that this category which has entered the political arena clearly does include bans on true statements.
Pretty much.
from Wikipedia:
Mr. Unz was criticized (called a "hater" no doubt) because he wanted to know the (scientific) truth. I'm sure that whatever findings Prof. Cochran came up with were denounced as "hate speech" by the usual suspects.
Whether you were born that way or not should be a purely academic question. Politics should not enter into it because nobody granted government the power to outlaw sexuality to begin with.
Hence anti-gay laws are invalid from first principles.
But remember it was sadly necessary to knock down immoral laws against gays by tying it to an inherent characteristic, instead of inherent freedom.
Reading the Riot Act to Truth-Tellers at UT San Antonio
"very small" numbers of intersex people isn't zero. (~0.02% according to what I could find quickly)
Intersex is not the same thing as "both sexes" or "neither sex."
The figure for 0.02% is largely made up of people with CAH or CAIS. Although these conditions can result in a body that is intermediate between a standard male and a standard female, affected individuals are still unambiguously of male sex or unambiguously of female sex. The genetic faults kick in after sex has been determined by gonadal differentiation.
So the real figure for "neither" is probably less than a tenth of this. These are the very rare cases of mosaics and other folk who do not have identifiable gonadal tissue of either sex.
Because "male" and "female" can refer to either biomarker sex or gender identity, the sign is not a statement of fact.
And in this context it's clear that they are referring to biomarker sex, so it is indeed a statement of fact.
They are arguing that "male" and "female" should refer to biomarker sex, which is a statement of opinion.
No it’s the complainers who are insisting that the speaker should be referring to their preferred and poorly defined concept of gender, rather than to the usual concrete non-metaphorical concept of sex, which is what the speaker is referring to.
If you were to state that you were a lawyer, intending that you should be understood in the usual sense of someone with some kind of legal qualification, the fact that someone else might choose to put the meaning “pettily argumentative person” on “lawyer” would not change your remark from a statement of fact to a statement of opinion.
In every context I can think of "I am a lawyer" is a statement of a fact because everyone agrees on the definition of a lawyer (legal qualifications). But perhaps you can put forth a context where "lawyer" could mean "pettily argumentative person."
In contrast, at the very heart of this controversy, is what "male" and "female" means. We don't agree and the speaker is expressing his opinion that it refers to biomarker sex.
"sea lawyer", "barrack room lawyer"
In what context (hypothetical) would "I am a lawyer" not be clear as to legal-qualification, sea or barrack-room?
Since few would want to accuse themselves of being a pettily argumentative person, ambiguity would be more likely in the third person.
With "lawyer" and "sea lawyer" there has not been a determined campaign to insist that the "sea" is an inappropriate and unnecessary marker of metaphor, as is the case with "trans" in "trans woman", but the fact that it remains necessary to keep insisting that "trans women are women" indicates that the transition from metaphor to dead metaphor has some way to go yet*.
And I intend to resist it every step of the way 🙂
* perhaps because in the expression "sea lawyer" , "sea" is not equivalent to "not a". It merely denotes the place where the metaphorical lawyer plies his trade. Whereas with "trans", it really does betoken "not a", plain and simple. Hence the very hard uphill push to make the metaphor stick.
But leaving aside existing metaphorical uses of "lawyer", suppose that "pettily argumentative person" came into usage in some places among some persons as a new (metaphorical) meaning of "lawyer" ; that still wouldn't change your statement "I am a lawyer" into a statement of opinion. It would still be a statement of fact, intended as such.
That some people might disagree, based on ther erroneous assumption that you were using their preferred metaphorical meaning would simply make it - in their view, and since they would have misunderstood your claim - an erroneous statement of fact.
I think you are confusing the religious signmaker's statement itself, and his reasons for making his statement on his sign. The latter may indeed have to do with insisting on what he thinks is the correct English usage, but the sign itself is not an opinion about the meaning of words, but an assertion of fact about the binariness of sex.
It would be a statement of opinion if people did not have a common understanding of what "lawyer" meant. If the statement had instead been "I am a legal-qualification lawyer," that would be a statement of fact.
Had the sign said, "there are two biomarker sexes," that too would have been a statement of fact. But the sign did not say that, and I don't believe that was its intended meaning either. I think the intent was to invalidate as a delusion a gender identity that doesn't match biomarker sex. And, that's an opinion. Context, context, context!
It would be a statement of opinion if people did not have a common understanding of what "lawyer" meant.
I really think this is just wrong. Suppose you were to be sitting in the bar of a country club while some PGA tournament was going on. In strides a tall good looking guy and the person sitting next to you leans over and says quietly "He's a player."
She intends to convey the message that he's a louche individual with a very high opinion of himself, primarily interested in picking up women. That's a perfectly normal usage of "player." You, however, being innocent and unworldly, and having never come across this usage, imagine that she is identifying this guy as one of the competitors in the tournament. You and your neighbor have achieved a miscommunication based on the fact that "player" has more than one meaning, and you picked a different one from the one she was using.
Does this miscommunication make her statement a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact ? Surely not. She was attempting to assert, and did successfully assert, that he was a player at the game of bedpost notching, as a factual matter. You just misunderstood, because the term she used could be taken in two ways. But your misunderstanding doesn't flip it into being a statement of opinion.
She should have made herself clear by saying "he is a louche." But a jury can determine whether she meant louche or not. In the present case, so too can a jury. But to me, as explained above, the sign is not saying there are two biomarker sexes.
When I use pronouns, when I use "male and female" when I use "boy or girl" when I use "man or woman", I'm referring solely to biological sex. You're free to have whatever subjective beliefs about your personality being defined by a gender you want. I live in a much simpler objective world.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/16/now-justice-barrett-uses-noncitizen-instead-of-alien/?comments=true#comment-9495605
I don’t understand anti-trans other than women’s sports and with respect to minors being groomed. In 2022 people can dress however they want and it doesn’t bother me. And gay and lesbians are currently using the restrooms and so that means people sexually attracted to people of the same sex are already in bathrooms…although I believe our bathrooms are sub-optimally designed and so we should only have one bathroom with more privacy at each stall with urinals in the very back. And no more troughs—they are disgusting!!
Don't forget men in women's prisons raping people.
Not all prison guards are rapists.
I think the problem is that there is a conflation of "anti-trans" with "anti-accept-our-trans-beliefs-or-else".
The pro-trans movement wants everyone to believe that if you don't agree with them, it's an attack on them and that means you're anti-trans.
But being unable to accept differences in opinion is just one more thing wrong with trans ideology.
The pro-trans movement wants everyone to believe that if you don't agree with them, it's an attack on them and that means you're anti-trans.
Don't agree with what, specifically? That they are trans? That being transgender is a real thing that is just a part of them the same way that your sense of your gender is to you?
If you don't agree with their basic existence, then that is kind of "anti-trans" don't you think? Unless you are simply reserving the right to not believe them while still being willing to tolerate them and acknowledge their rights.
But being unable to accept differences in opinion is just one more thing wrong with trans ideology.
I think that ideology is definitely the wrong word to use. If it was a deliberate choice to label it that way, then that could be part of the problem. Much like people that talk about homosexuality being a "lifestyle".
"If you don't agree with their basic existence, then that is kind of "anti-trans" don't you think?"
No one is saying trans people don't exist. The fact that you can't come up with an honest argument highlights the weakness of your position.
Did I say anything about trans not existing? Or in fact, did I implicitly acknowledge their existence by saying it's not about being anti-trans?
It is an ideology. One that cannot accept the disagreement of others. It's a belief system. One that believes men can be women and women can be men. Where you cannot acknowledge a difference between a man or a trans-man without it being considered an attack on their very existence. Poppycock!
It's an ideology that's founded on lies and narcissism. You can only affirm. There's no other options. As long as a person is embracing the trans ideology, whatever they choose is good and receives praise (a very potent drug). Regardless if it involves irreversible medical procedures and drugs given based on a lie that you can be whatever you want, man or woman.
It's an ideology that does not realize how much of a farce it has become. LGBTQIA+++++++. It keeps creating new terms and genders and scientific nonsense. It has destroyed feminism by denying the reality of differences between men and women.
It's an ideology that has become a perversion, proclaiming it's good and not at all sexual to have children do drag.
People can dress however they like. They can call themselves whatever they want. I can disagree with it, think its ridiculous (like Furries), but in the end, I really don't care (like Furries).
Until they demand that I not only accept that they can do whatever crazy thing they want, but must agree and affirm and not disagree with their pronouncements of being something they are not. Or that they be treated like something they are not. Or when they want to confuse and pervert children.
Don't agree with what, specifically?
That wishing you were Governor of Georgia, or even sincerely believing that you are Governor of Georgia, makes you, in fact, Governor of Georgia.
Or more generally - wishing doesn't make it so. Even believing doesn't make it so. Only actually being so, makes it so.
None of which is to say that if you are not Governor of Georgia, but strongly wish you were, or strongly believe you are, you may not suffer angst or deep unhappiness from the sharp disjunction between your hopes and beliefs, and the objective facts. So sympathy is a perfectly reasonable reaction.
Ah, but the whole idea behind the "liberal" / "progressive" ideology is that if something seems "unfair" to you (e.g.: This poor "transgender female" athlete isn't being allowed to participate in female competitions! This poor disabled golfer is being prevented from playing by PGA rules! Etc., etc.) -- why, you go ahead and fix it! Change the world! 2 + 2 = 5! "Progress"!
Isn't it super-unfair that insurance companies won't insure someone with preexisting conditions? Why, we'll make them!
For example, I don't believe that they, them and their are singlar pronouns in the English language. And certainly not if the person does not refer to the self as "we."
Criticize that misuse of English by a gender dysphoric person and you will be accused of being anti-trans.
You don't like the word "ideology. Do you prefer "religion?"
By the way bisexuality and even (gender independent) homosexuality is a lifestyle choice for some, but not for others.
The world is wider than your imagination or your ideology.
Neighbor ought to put up a sign: "My sky-daddy can beat up your sky-daddy!", watch the original's face go flaming red.
Or "Exodus" for short. Pharoah's gods were real, existing ones Yahweh beat.
Is it really 'hate speech' if you're not really expressing hatred at any specific individual or group and just stating an opinion on the reality of gender? I mean either side of this debate could be classed as hatred toward somebody if you want to stretch the definition that far.
It's hate speech if they hate it.
yeah 'hate', 'racism', 'sexism' its all utterly divorced from any solid meaning now. A wise political movement could find a way to point this out. But of course most conservatives although not quite as insane as leftists aren't much brighter.
Leaving aside that hate speech is a dumb and nebulous qualification, this is telling trans people they are invalid or defective, which is indeed pretty crappy to them.
But more than that, given the clear position trans people have laid out, there is a pretty strong subtext of 'fuck you trans people' here. Kinda like 'all lives matter' parses as true, if you're blind and dumb to recent history.
What part of the slogan is the 'you are invalid or defective' part. All it is is arguing for one classification system vs another. Why shouldn't believers in binary gender feel just as invalidated by someone saying their beliefs are mistaken and they are not who they think they are?
The slogan implies the treatment for gender dysphoria cannot affirm the person's gender identity, and therefore their gender identity is invalid.
It is far different to be invalidated for what you believe than for what you are.
"The slogan implies the treatment for gender dysphoria cannot affirm the person's gender identity, and therefore their gender identity is invalid."
Just because someone doesn't buy the idea that gender identity is a meaningful concept doesn't mean that people who disagree are somehow invalid.
It might mean that they're wrong, and that gives away the game: The trans agenda is to ban disagreement over how we perceive other people.
Trans rights advocates aren't claiming they are invalidating those who disagree. It was AmosArch claiming he is a victim of invalidation.
AmosArch doesn't appear to be claiming that anyone is being "invalidated". It sounds like he's just saying that your poor reasoning could also be applied to claim that people who subscribe to the standard gender paradigm are also being invalidated.
If AmosArch was making a reductio ad absurdum argument, it fails because it is not absurd for someone to be invalidated because of their beliefs.
What is the relevant difference between. "lol you are not gender fluid nonconforming two spirit its a social constuct" vs "lol you are not a woman, its a social construct". Both are opposing a worldview and belief about one's self. You just happen to agree with the latter.
I believe in the latter because of the substantial evidence (hundreds of thousands of Americans with gender dysphoria for whom gender-affirming treatment works) in support of it. And that evidence strongly implies being transgender is a trait.
lol what is your definition of 'work'? Is it the vast majority of 'transgender' kids no longer being so when they grow up? Or maybe the much higher suicide rate and death rate of transgenders? Caused by the evil conservatives and not the enablers of a possibly disruptive lifestyle of course.
Those kids didn't have gender dysphoria. "Lifestyle" is reminiscent of what the dinosaurs said about gays. It ain't a lifestyle, it's a trait.
yeah leftoids said they did but they didn't so they don't count. But don't worry leftoids are 100% correct today with diagnosis by Twitter announcement!
My point is not about the validity - I think others handle that ably.
My point is that either time you say that, the person you're saying it to is going to get ticked off.
"he person you're saying it to is going to get ticked off."
Actually they frequently get ticked off as soon as you are unwilling to by into their political lingo. For example, refuse to post your pronouns and you are branded as transphobic. Insist on English grammar that pronouns and verbs should agree in number and you are branded as transphobic.
Sorry, my language, my choice. Use whatever you want, but don't expect me to parrot it.
Leaving aside that hate speech is a dumb and nebulous qualification
Red letter day. We are in agreement.
this is telling trans people they are invalid or defective
Not quite sure where "invalid" comes from, but is it your position that trans folk are not defective, in the sense of not suffering from any kind of dysphoria or angst or problem that they'd rather be without ? That their condition is just fine, and no problem, if only the nasty folk would stop saying nasty things ?
given the clear [sic] position trans people have laid out
Good one.
When Mrs Moore says "I am a woman" i understand precisely what she means. When a trans woman says "I am a woman" I have no clue. Or rather I have several clues none of which hang together or are consistent from sentence to sentence. But since it's clear, you could explain. What is it - clearly - that a trans woman means by "I am a woman" ?
Plenty of things we can treat that don't make you defective.
When a trans woman says "I am a woman" I have no clue
That's on you. You may not agree, but lack of clarity is not the issue.
Who could be surprised that you’re declining the opportunity to offer a substantive answer.
And btw you were the fellow who introduced the word “defective”
Yeah, I absolutely introduced it for truth purposes. Don't be an ass.
Trans women are women is a pretty clear statement to me; I can see disagreeing with it (though I think that's wrong and kinda cruel given what we know). But it's not a hard statement to grasp.
But no, not everything that causes misery before it's treated is a defect. That's not how we use that word.
Trans women are women is a pretty clear statement to me; I can see disagreeing with it (though I think that's wrong and kinda cruel given what we know). But it's not a hard statement to grasp.
Once again dodging giving a straight answer and simply asserting clarity.
"Trans women are women" pretends to be, but is not, the same sort of sentence as "Tall women are women". The second sentence is perfectly self consistent because "women" means the same thing in both places - humans with a body plan consistent with the female reproductive role.
But in the first sentence "women" doesn't mean that, otherwise it would be obviously false. So (a) it's not clear, since it eschews the ordinary, unambiguous, long standing meaning of "women" and (b) it must mean something else by "women." And something else that is the same in both places in the sentence, and which does not involve a circular definition.
Nobody ever offers a clear alternative meaning of "women" in this sentence. This is because :
"Trans women are women"
is simply a conjuring trick. It is intended to lull the unsuspecting into coloring the second use of "women" with its traditional sense, while glossing over the fact that the first use is entirely contrary to the traditional sense. It is equivalent to :
"Fake diamonds are diamonds."
"Fake diamonds are diamonds."
Touché.
Sure. Which is his constitutionally protected opinion.
But where’s the threat?
I don't think there is one - hence me 'Leaving aside that hate speech is a dumb and nebulous qualification.'
But I also get why people get ticked off when he says that.
Sure, if I were them I’d be pissed. But don’t go claiming threats when there clearly aren’t any. It’s a fairly common habit among progressives and its not a good look for their credibility.
Where did I claim there was a threat?
You didn’t. I was referring to the “victims”.
Ah, OK.
Yeah, I won't defend the OP. I just took issue with Amos' comment.
I know this is a kind of silly exercise, but I like to play what if I thought like a lawyer when faced with these kinds of situations.
What if "perpetuating a state of hate" were an actual legal standard? What if it would only be legally binding when applied to "a vulnerable community"?
The hate would have to be actually already be IN a state of existence for one thing, because you're culpable only for "perpetuating" it. I guess that lets you off the hook if you're instigating a new state. Or, if the state has ended, and now you are resurrecting it, that doesn't apply either I guess.
And the community would have to be "vulnerable". Not sure how one goes about defining that, but I guess if you direct your perpetuating towards someone rich and powerful, you're off the hook.
And even the fact that it has to be a "community" might give you an out. Direct your perpetuating at an individual, and then it doesn't matter if they're vulnerable or not.
I agree with Prof. Volokh -- gullible, obsolete conservatives who are loudly proud of their superstition-based bigotry have rights, too!
The existence of intersex persons demonstrates that the Spaldings' "heavenly father" is (in addition to being illusory) a serious fuckup. Why would anyone respect (let alone worship) such a paltry, inept thing?
Other than the childish gullibility, I mean.
Yes, the people that believe that there are two sexes are the gullible ones, not the ones who believe putting on makeup and liking "feminine" things makes you a girl.
The law mustn't rule on a person's character per se, but we are under no such constraint. Based on the admittedly limited (but pithy) quotes presented, I'd give the Spaldings' gay neighbor +2 and tip of the cap so far, the Spaldings jointly -1.5 (with a positive adjustment and much empathy for the less-unreasonable Spalding, if one of them was actually anti-sign).
Let them bring in Zooey Toower to threaten him with getting a ride in an ambulance.
What the third neighbor said would make your average SJW's head explode:
You mean to say "social justice" doesn't trump everything else?! No way!!!
"The First Amendment doesn't protect hate speech.", he lied, parroting politicians who want to crack open and use censorship, the greatest weapon in a tyrant's golf bag.
Personally, I find that quote to be hateful and it makes me feel unsafe, there it must be banned as "hate speech".