Reply #27: I'll say it again

[ant]

I suspect the nos will win, but I'd like people to think about something here.

So we've preserved the right of expression, or, more precisely, the right to use an expression in a very specific, sexist way.

What have we lost? Does no one understand how it might make women feel to hear that the right to use sexist language is more important than making it clear that sexism will not be tolerated?

I believe in freedom of speech, but can you yell fire in a crowded theater? Can you use a racist slur against a co-worker? Can pro-lifers protest INSIDE a clinic?

Aren't all of these things legitimate restrictions on expression?

Aren't there already such restrictions in place on this forum?

Society makes compromises all the time; no right is absolute. What this really is is a debate over priorities, and I'm just dismayed that this community, of all communities, would consider the right to use a word in a specific, sexist way more important than sending the message that sexism, no matter how "funny" or "harmless," will not be tolerated.

I guess I just don't understand what everyone's fighting for in opposing this ban. I just don't see what preserving this right to use this word in a sexist way contributes here that's so important.

And to be perfectly honest, it's not that the word would be allowed that bothers me, it's that the members here would consider using it that way, or even just defend their right to use it that way, that bothers me. It's just so sexist, and it's sad that no one can see that.