Quote (thesnipa @ Mar 28 2023 10:18am)
why? ive found the speech is violence movement so odd over the past several years.
no speech can be intimidation or harassment, and those are bad too. but it's not violence.
violence is a buzzword, and there's an attempt by movements on both sides of the political spectrum to capitalize on that label to expand the definition for protection. its a cheap way to make progress that is mostly for emotional appeal. it wont change the law statutes, it wont change how most people feel, its just for a quick grab of attention.
even legally speaking there are protections for using violence in the fact of perceived violence. if you're angry and get right up in my face in most cases i can punch you square in the mouth without facing charges.
I just find the semantic of needing a specific physical element to qualify as "violence" is odd, because it undermines what still remains hurtful, impactful, and abusive. It gives me very child-like "But I'm not touching you!" vibes.
Quote (El1te @ Mar 28 2023 10:03am)
not just persons, destruction of objects/property is also violence per the definition
How is destruction of property "violent"?
Quote (DizzyBusiness @ Mar 28 2023 10:11am)
Dressing in drag is not an immutable characteristic though. I view drag queens as entirely different than trans people, drag is a form of entertainment/artistic expression whereas transgenderism is an attempt to literally become the opposite gender and to be viewed as such by society.
I think equating the two confuses an already confusing situation, the same way trans issues being inextricably linked to the rest of the LGB community makes it a much more difficult topic to discuss.
I agree that "Drag is not an immutable characteristic". What I'm saying though is that many people who are supportive of this kind of legislation are likely to view being transgender as illegitimate, and then in-essence a transgender person merely existing would fall under this definition of "drag".