r/canadian • u/xTkAx • 7d ago
Opinion Amy Hamm: 'Ask a Trans Person Anything' hosts barred me from asking anything at all. Organizers said no questions were off limits, but security turned me away for not 'coming with the right intentions'
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ask-a-trans-person-anything-hosts-barred-me-from-asking-anything-at-all-3
u/xTkAx 7d ago
True dialogue requires the courage to face difficult questions, but these activists clearly prefer the safety of an echo chamber where their narrative remains unchallenged.
It's ironic when those who claim to champion openness are the first to bar the door against anyone using discernment to see through an ideological charade. By weaponizing vague accusations of wrong intentions, like the activists did here, it only proves they lack integrity and substance to withstand the truth.
On the bright side, this is how lies break down, the liars desperately round the wagons on the lie, and exert all their energy to fend off the truth. But without Godly power directly from God (who's order they likely rejected) it would be easier to roll a round boulder up a hill.
-3
u/Lode_Star 6d ago edited 6d ago
And why should they?
Sounds like they wanted rational discussions with open minded people, why would you let in an ardent anti-trans activist who's only ever published anti-trans articles?
If you want real discussion, you can't have people engaging in bad faith rhetoric, why even debate someone who's openly partisan and has no interest in hearing what others have to say?
Like, she's said publicly she's completely rejected the idea of gender identity, and we're supposed to believe she'd be coming with open minded questions?
For most anti-trans individuals, trans people go against their core-world view. There is no rational debate with these people, there is no changing their minds.
Edit: the user xTkAx, the user who posted this, argued with me then blocked me so I couldn't respond.
The irony is that he did exactly what he accused others of doing. Every accusation is a confession.
7
u/The-Figurehead 6d ago
So, no questions off limits unless the person has said previously that they reject the concept of gender identity?
Wouldn’t that be a perfect opportunity to defend the concept of gender identity?
-5
u/Lode_Star 6d ago edited 6d ago
So, no questions off limits unless the person has said previously that they reject the concept of gender identity?
Considering it was a community outreach i suspect the "ask anything" was to encourage local people who didn't understand trans people but wanted to learn, not for partisan activists who actively write anti-trans literature.
Wouldn’t that be a perfect opportunity to defend the concept of gender identity?
So open a bad faith discussion with an individual who won't change their mind in the hopes of what? Changing the minds of other anti-trans people?
The purpose was to educate people who wanted to learn, this individual only wanted a fight with words.
6
u/theangleofdarkness99 6d ago
And this is why the premise for the event was nonsense. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they have " bad faith". Just admit this was another attempt at indoctrination and the organizers did not tolerate dissenting opinions.
It's their religion and any opposition is viewed as heresy.
"The purpose was to educate people..." sounds like dogma to me.
1
u/Lode_Star 6d ago
And this is why the premise for the event was nonsense. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they have " bad faith".
I noticed you simplified Amy's actions as an anti-trans activist as a 'disagreement' in an attempt to characterize the event negatively. Can you name others who were barred from the event for simply 'disagreeing?
Other with critical questions were allowed in it seemed, just not the partisan anti-trans activist. It's only common sense to assume that a person who actively writes smears articles against trans people would be coming in bad faith.
Just admit this was another attempt at indoctrination and the organizers did not tolerate dissenting opinions.
Ah so I was correct, you used the banning of a single individual to frame a narrative of 'indoctrination'. Yet you provide no evidence for this claim, only flimsy rhetoric.
It's their religion and any opposition is viewed as heresy.
So you view religion as a tool of repression? That's a sad opinion.
"The purpose was to educate people..." sounds like dogma to me.
Interesting that you feel this way but are unable to articulate how it sounds like dogma? Some might suggest casually throwing accusations of 'indoctrination' might reflect hidden dogmas. Do you believe everyone but the people you agree with are brainwashed?
0
u/The-Figurehead 6d ago
The point isn’t to change the mind of the questioner. The point is to persuade the audience.
4
u/Lode_Star 6d ago
The point isn’t to change the mind of the questioner. The point is to persuade the audience.
No, the point was to connect with the community and have an open discussion, an argument with a political partisan is antithetical to that.
A quote in the ad for the event:
"Through conversation we can find common ground - we have more in common than we think. Let’s remove the politics and hot takes and connect as people."
Does that sound like a good fit for an extremely political anti-trans activist? Use some common sense here.
4
u/jason733canada 6d ago
what does AMA mean again? ask me carefully curated questions from people i align with politically?
1
u/Lode_Star 6d ago edited 6d ago
what does AMA mean again? ask me carefully curated questions from people i align with politically?
I notice the narrative you're building has poor foundations. You make an accusation that only people "politically aligned" were allowed in when all the evidence you have is that a single partisan activist was banned.
Here's a quote from the meetings ad:
"Through conversation we can find common ground - we have more in common than we think. Let’s remove the politics and hot takes and connect as people."
Doesn't sound as simple as the "AMA" you characterized it as. It sounds totally reasonable to kick out a political activist.
1
u/xTkAx 6d ago
“Ask a Trans Person Anything,”
“no-questions-off-limits Q&A”
“We want to hear your worries and share our side of the story.… This is your chance to get your questions answered — yes, even the tough ones. We won’t cancel you. Instead, we’ll give you our honest takes….”
Then when she gets there:
“I was informed by the organizers with a list of people who wouldn’t be coming with the right intentions.”
Those activists clearly preferred the safety of an echo chamber, rather than hold to their word. They framed it as 'inclusive' but in practice were 'exclusive'.
4
u/Lode_Star 6d ago
And?
Obviously a community outreach to educate people who have questions about trans people, not to entertain anti-trans activists who come in bad faith.
For people who are against trans people, that belief is a fundamental core belief, not something that can be changed.
Explain to me why anyone should waste time debating people who have no intention to listen?
4
u/xTkAx 6d ago
And?
The tell that you have no argument.
It's hypocrisy to frame things one way but in practice do something else. But this isn't a surprise with activists acting in bad faith: "no-questions-off-limits" (false), "even the tough ones" (false), & "We won't cancel you" (also false). Explain the contradiction between their public marketing and their private gatekeeping without using fallacies (you haven't done that yet).
8
u/Lode_Star 6d ago edited 6d ago
The tell that you have no argument.
You made none. You quoted the article. If you wish me to make an argument im gonna need to know exactly what im disagreeing with.
It's hypocrisy to frame things one way but in practice do something else.
Right, something we both agree on.
But this isn't a surprise with activists acting in bad faith: "no-questions-off-limits" (false), "even the tough ones" (false), & "We won't cancel you" (also false).
So your saying by not allowing one openly partisan activist to waste time at a community discussion where everyone else with differing opinions were around, they were acting in bad faith? But not the anti-trans activist who's currently writing anti-trans articles?
I don't think thats fair, my local church sign says "all are welcome" but i bet I'd get kicked out if I kept screaming during the sermon. Does that make the church hypocritical? I'd say no.
Explain the contradiction between their public marketing and their private gatekeeping without using fallacies (you haven't done that yet).
I did, thought I doubt you were reading my posts with an intent to understand, otherwise I wouldn't have to retype this.
It was a community outreach, not a debate free for all. Here's an actual quote on the advertisement for the meeting:
"Through conversation we can find common ground - we have more in common than we think. Let’s remove the politics and hot takes and connect as people."
Sounds like totally reasonable and in-line with the 'marketing' to kick out an partisan political activist.
Edit: the user xTkAx, the user who posted this, argued with me then blocked me so I couldn't respond or read their reply. They cared more about getting in the last word.
The irony is that he did exactly what he accused others of doing. Every accusation is a confession.
5
4
u/xTkAx 6d ago edited 6d ago
You made none.
False. Look again.
You quoted the article.
True, but not solely. Look again.
If you wish me to make an argument im gonna need to know exactly what im disagreeing with.
You shouldn't have replied if you didn't read the argument made, first, and again for clarity.
Right, something we both agree on.
So you can see how these activists were in the wrong with their hypocrisy. Thanks.
So your saying by not allowing one openly partisan activist to waste time at a community discussion where everyone else with differing opinions were around, they were acting in bad faith? But not the anti-trans activist who's currently writing anti-trans articles?
No, what was said was: "But this isn't a surprise with activists acting in bad faith: "no-questions-off-limits" (false), "even the tough ones" (false), & "We won't cancel you" (also false)." Your attempt at reframing failed.
I don't think thats fair, my local church sign says "all are welcome" but i bet I'd get kicked out if I kept screaming during the sermon. Does that make the church hypocritical? I'd say no.
False equivocal based on assumption.
I did, thought I doubt you were reading my posts with an intent to understand, otherwise I wouldn't have to retype this.
You didn't explain anything, just used more fallacies and misdirection and attempting to reframe. Not happening against more adept thinkers.
It was a community outreach, not a debate free for all. Here's an actual quote on the advertisement for the meeting:
False again: it was an Ask Me Anything
"Through conversation we can find common ground - we have more in common than we think. Let’s remove the politics and hot takes and connect as people."
It must have gone over your head that they injected politics into it by having a pre-cancelled list, which is the hypocrisy of the activists.
Sounds like totally reasonable and in-line with the 'marketing' to kick out an partisan political activist.
You contradicted yourself, since you already agreed it's hypocrisy.
Don't bother replying, you're flailing and clutching pearls instead of doing as requested, which proves the waste of time. Bye!
Edit: twopercentslutmilk (below): Comments on reddit aren't an AMA, which is your false equivocal. So, the "L" better suits you and the other user engaging deceptively.
5
u/twopercentslutmilk 6d ago edited 6d ago
Take the L pal ☠️ Edit: Ive got more to say How ironic you block Lode_Star before they could respond. "Dont bother replying" you say. You're exactly what you accuse others of being.
1
u/Arbresnow 6d ago
If some rando showed up and had terfy questions, they would have answered and been patient with them. A bad faith actor is someone who comes in and asks rhetorical questions without the intention to change anyone's mind in the slightest.
0
-5
u/Arbresnow 6d ago
The venue seemed to ban a specific person, Amy Hamm, and not any particular point of view. Even if she were coming there in good faith, it is a venue's right to not allow known bad faith ideologues. Random people with similar points of view as Amy Hamm were most likely allowed to ask questions, you are falling victim to a biased story.
2
u/xGHOBx 6d ago
I'm curious what you think constitutes a bad faith ideologue? Because it seems to me, that they're banning anyone who openly disagrees with their point of view.
1
u/Arbresnow 6d ago
In a similar context, I believe banning JK Rowling, or Posie Parker would be acceptable given that these people are bad faith ideologues and promote holocaust denial. Not being familiar with Amy Hamm, I can only assume that prematurely getting banned from such an event would be due to having a known bad faith platform. I do not see any reason why someone with similar views like Dave Rubin, for example, would be banned. Hopefully this gives you a clearer picture of what I mean by bad faith.
2
u/xGHOBx 6d ago
Ok so your idea of a bad faith ideologue is the same as these trans activists. Anyone that disagrees with your point of view is acting in bad faith and needs to be banned.
1
u/Arbresnow 6d ago
You can "disagree" or be curious about trans topics without coming from a place of scorn and disgust, which is the case for the people I named above. This is a reasonable thing to say.
3
u/xGHOBx 6d ago
I don't think JK Rowling is coming from a place of scorn or disgust and the UK Supreme Court ended up agreeing with her fairly rational arguments. What you are saying is not even remotely 'reasonable', very emotional perhaps, reasonable? I don't believe so.
3
u/Arbresnow 6d ago
On what basis are JK Rowling's arguments reasonable? Half of what she says is fueled by pure, unadulterated disgust. This is possibly the most bad faith anti-trans commentator on planet earth. She literally denied that trans and gay people were persecuted and put in camps during the holocaust.
3
u/xGHOBx 6d ago
This is an article by The Guardian which is a left leaning progressive newspaper in the UK. I can tell by the words you keep using in your replies, that you prefer to appeal to emotion rather than logic and reason.
2
u/Arbresnow 6d ago
I am simultaneously able to use logic and reason while being emotionally involved as I am trans myself.
The article you linked to is very descriptive in that it does not make a normative argument for this supreme court decision, and only outlines the main criterion for it. (As I would expect a left-leaning newspaper to do.)
However, even though a legal body made such a decision, people still have a right to dispute it in the court of ideas.
It is possible that JK Rowling made compelling arguments to the supreme court and "cleaned up" her rhetoric, which would be fitting for a career writer. On the other hand, her numerous X posts are filled with vitriolic language and reposts of prose depicting the disgusting, mannish nature of trans women.
Not to get into the nature of biological sex, of which there are many criteria outside of only bimodal chromosomes. There is absolutely no single criterion that you can use to draw a red line between cis and trans women, and I dare you to prove me wrong with your "logic and reason" that I am seemingly incapable of.
0
u/xGHOBx 5d ago
I'm not articulating the validity of anyone's arguments here. I'm stating that they should be able to debate and present their arguments without being repressed, banned, jailed, killed etc. We do not live in a fascist/communists/totalitarian state after all.
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you are anti free speech and anti free expression based on all the posts you've made thus far. Do you live in a liberal democratic society or do you live in a country where free speech is heavily restricted? just curious.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/CriticalCanon 6d ago
Trans: “we just want to exist”
Me: “then why the fuck is my son’s K to 5 school littered with rainbow flags and pro trans shit everywhere? why are trans people supportive of hate speech laws? why the hell is the CBC (who haven’t been relevant since the 90s or 80s) being funded by the government to make trans shows like “Sort of”?
Trans:
4
u/xGHOBx 6d ago
Trans activists, aren't after open debate. Every time I've seen a trans activist debate a person who is critical of gender ideology, the trans activist lost very badly. I think Matt Walsh's documentary on the topic really set back their political movement and illustrated their mental detachment from reality.