Read on Twitter
So one thing that anti-trans movement has done is deny the existence of transphobia, or at least narrow what should be considered transphobia, and they use speech-chilling tactics to do so, SLAPP suits, social media harassment campaigns, etc.
It is and always has been transphobic to call trans women men and trans men women. But they’re claiming now it isn’t and they’re willing to go full nuclear lawsuit to enforce it in court.
Trans people are significantly more likely to be impoverished than cis people, and we lack the institutional power to stand up to suits like this. Why would a publication or company stand up for trans people they’re not even willing to employ in the first place?
This leads to a very obvious chilling effect! Why would anyone risk crossing one of the richest and litigious women in the world to accurately describe her as transphobic, knowing she can reign down legal hell on you for years?
So the very obvious safe play is to disengage entirely. But it is a suppression of free speech, unquestionably.
If the free speech yocals think an online mob can chill speech but not frivolous SLAPP lawsuits, then they’re not really concerned about free speech.
Just also noting that it’s not up to cis people to define transphobia. I know y’all are used to having the numbers to decide everything but you can’t remove our ability to name our oppression.
