There is a concept called the paradox of tolerance. In order for a society to be tolerant, it needs to accept all people. However, there are people who are intolerant. If society accepts them, they will have to elevate the speech of the intolerant which means incorporating intolerance into society. If society rejects them, they will have to be intolerant to a group of people which means incorporating intolerance into society. The paradox seems unsolvable until it is reframed.
Rather than tolerance being a straight jacket it is instead a contract or peace treaty. As long as everyone is tolerant to each other everything is fine. As soon as a group chooses to be intolerant, they have breached the agreement. This means the intolerant group is no longer protected by the agreement. The rest of society no longer has to tolerate the intolerant group. Nor should they, because to do so would be to condone intolerance against members of society. The society as a whole remains tolerant because all the rest of the groups practice tolerance to each other.
Gender affirming care involves helping trans people, both youths and adults, to transition to their gender identity through the use of therapy, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy. It is lifesaving care. Unsubstantiated attacks to gender affirming care are a threat to the lives of all trans people. Threatening the lives of people with a disinformation campaign is a breach of the social contract of tolerance. When fascists attempt to spread life-threatening disinformation campaigns, people at all levels of society should stand up to them.
This woman did the right thing. She put human life and liberty over the mail. Standing up to fascists doesn’t always mean punching Nazis. It means seeing intolerance for what it is and refusing to tolerate it. We may all find ourselves in similar situations sooner rather than later. We should all seek to emulate this woman.
To be as clear as possible, banning gender affirming care will put trans people in a life threatening situation. So this disinformation campaign to ban gender affirming care, if successful, can only lead to putting trans people in a life threatening situation. A person’s freedoms should not extend to the point where they are free to harm other people. Disinformation that can only harm a group of people should not be protected speech.
I know this topic can be contentious as the mail is an essential service for many people. And I’m aware not everyone is familiar with trans issues. I spoke up because I saw people falling into a common trap. Standing up to fascists doesn’t make us fascists. Freedom of speech rests on the foundation of the truth. If we tolerate lies, elevating them to the same status as the truth, we undermine free speech. My hope is that people will see this was not a moral disagreement. This was a strategic decision to defend a group’s right to exist, that did not infringe on anyone else’s freedoms. The right of an apolitical, uninterrupted mail service should not supersede a group’s right to exist. edit: updated the third link edit: typo
https://philosophyterms.com/paradox-of-tolerance/
There is a concept called the paradox of tolerance. In order for a society to be tolerant, it needs to accept all people. However, there are people who are intolerant. If society accepts them, they will have to elevate the speech of the intolerant which means incorporating intolerance into society. If society rejects them, they will have to be intolerant to a group of people which means incorporating intolerance into society. The paradox seems unsolvable until it is reframed.
https://conversational-leadership.net/tolerance-is-a-social-contract/
Rather than tolerance being a straight jacket it is instead a contract or peace treaty. As long as everyone is tolerant to each other everything is fine. As soon as a group chooses to be intolerant, they have breached the agreement. This means the intolerant group is no longer protected by the agreement. The rest of society no longer has to tolerate the intolerant group. Nor should they, because to do so would be to condone intolerance against members of society. The society as a whole remains tolerant because all the rest of the groups practice tolerance to each other.
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-gender-affirming-care
Gender affirming care involves helping trans people, both youths and adults, to transition to their gender identity through the use of therapy, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy. It is lifesaving care. Unsubstantiated attacks to gender affirming care are a threat to the lives of all trans people. Threatening the lives of people with a disinformation campaign is a breach of the social contract of tolerance. When fascists attempt to spread life-threatening disinformation campaigns, people at all levels of society should stand up to them.
This woman did the right thing. She put human life and liberty over the mail. Standing up to fascists doesn’t always mean punching Nazis. It means seeing intolerance for what it is and refusing to tolerate it. We may all find ourselves in similar situations sooner rather than later. We should all seek to emulate this woman.
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/harm-principle
To be as clear as possible, banning gender affirming care will put trans people in a life threatening situation. So this disinformation campaign to ban gender affirming care, if successful, can only lead to putting trans people in a life threatening situation. A person’s freedoms should not extend to the point where they are free to harm other people. Disinformation that can only harm a group of people should not be protected speech.
I know this topic can be contentious as the mail is an essential service for many people. And I’m aware not everyone is familiar with trans issues. I spoke up because I saw people falling into a common trap. Standing up to fascists doesn’t make us fascists. Freedom of speech rests on the foundation of the truth. If we tolerate lies, elevating them to the same status as the truth, we undermine free speech. My hope is that people will see this was not a moral disagreement. This was a strategic decision to defend a group’s right to exist, that did not infringe on anyone else’s freedoms. The right of an apolitical, uninterrupted mail service should not supersede a group’s right to exist. edit: updated the third link edit: typo