• anonymous111@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Good points. I agree with the paradox of tolerance and your other points.

    Thank you for taking the time to reply. This type of discussion is why in use social.media but it is rare to get past the partisan brigading.

    Civil disobedience is an interesting point in this case. Personally, I probably would have acted as this Canadian woman did.

    What I am struggling with is understanding what counts as a disinformation campaign. I read in your post that you’d answer this as a society and with research however, if you were put in charge of this research tomorrow, do you have a draft definition of a disinformation campaign?

    I ask as I try to see the world in black and white and steer clear of the grey however, this is rarely possible.

    Free speech being a good example. It’s either a 1 or 0.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      We learn what is true through observation and math. We establish things that we know to be true with scientific studies. When we see a campaign spreading information we know to be false, that would be a disinformation campaign.

      Here is a comment where I cite sources:

      https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/16679003/10778009

      Here is a source from that comment that has a comprehensive overview of gender affirming care:

      https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-gender-affirming-care

      Here is argument from that comment supported by that source:

      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.

      We aren’t going to be able to come up with a definition for all possible disinformation campaigns. We do not know everything. However such a definition is not needed to prevent specific disinformation campaigns. And it is possible to know things. Things we know to be true should be held up as the truth. We wouldn’t want the mail service to spread a disinformation campaign advocating for putting exposed radioactive material in people’s homes. We know radiation is harmful to carbon based life.

      Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire is not protected speech. Which is a specific rule about a specific kind of disinformation in a specific circumstance. But we have free speech. So free speech is not a 1 or a 0. Free speech rests on the foundation of the truth. If we know the truth about some topic that is critical to life, we should not allow spreading falsehoods about that topic. Gender affirming care should not be an exception to this principle.

      • anonymous111@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Thank you for this detailed reply.

        I think we’ve found the crux of our 2x points of view:

        1. Without a definition of a disinformation campaign it is difficult to set rules that can be enforced. Example: do religious leaflets count as disinformation as they aren’t based on scientific fact? If not then why is there an exemption for that case and not others?

        2. I preface this with: I am not in the field but am biased to the views of the British NHS. The scientific sources you’ve listed, though through, are contradicted by other scientific sources (note, I’m not talking about “these are my facts” but actual institutional research).

        Source: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

        Puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones

        Puberty blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) are not available to children and young people for gender incongruence or gender dysphoria because there is not enough evidence of safety and clinical effectiveness.

        So in summary there are 2x challenges I see:

        1. Reputable scientific sources do not agree on this issue.

        2. Applying a purely scientific principle will break existing norms and allowances. Principles agrees for this area and applied to other areas will cause an impact.

        I’m keen to get your views on this as this is where my own thought processes usually get stuck.

        Sorry for long text replies but this is helping with forming a more concrete view for myself :)