A thorn by any other name: sexist discourse as hate speech

Abstract

Scholarship on hate speech usually addresses racist and ethnicist discourses, and less often homophobic discourses. This article opens a conversation about sexist discourse as hate speech. In arguing that sexist discourse should be considered hate speech, I review several definitions of hate speech, one of which I use in analyzing the texts of neoconservative author William D. Gairdner. I argue that, although Gairdner's sexist discourse does not meet the legal definitions of hate speech, it is consistent with linguistic criteria for hate speech and that, since Gairdner's discourse is representative of mainstream sexist discourse, all such sexist discourse counts as hate speech. I conclude by asking why, amid all the published works on hate speech, the question of sexist discourse as hate speech is rarely even addressed. Since society still operates as if `male' and `female' were simple, self-evident categories, we, as feminists, must still respond to and challenge the sexist discourses that perpetuate and reproduce such dichotomies. One way to do that is to recognize sexist discourse as a form of hate speech and to challenge it on that basis.

Cisgenderism in psychology: pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008

“…Where some researchers (e.g., Zucker et al, 2009) see mere semantics, others consider sexist language an abusive and destructive form of hate speech (e.g., Lillian, 2007). Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase.…”

Woman‐Hating: On Misogyny, Sexism, and Hate Speech

“…Moreover, it is not clear that hate speech toward other marginalized groups is (always) part of a system that aims at universal eradication, so it is not even clear whether patriarchal oppression really is partly sui generis (though it may be). As Donna Lillian points out, “even in the 21st century, African Americans and Latinos/as are not the targets of mass genocide because capitalism demands that there be an exploited underclass without which capitalism would collapse” (Lillian , 732–33). That is to say, there are potentially many oppressive ideologies that may require the oppression and continued existence of a particular group.…”

“…A great deal of energy and political will is devoted to identifying, characterizing, contesting, and (sometimes) penalizing hate speech. Though there is no single definition of hate speech accepted by all scholars (Lillian , 731), a number of themes commonly appear in this literature. First, hate speech is often described as characteristically hostile.…”

Foiling the Intellectuals: Gender, Identity Framing, and the Rhetoric of the Kill in Conservative Hate Mail

“…Because sexist speech is constant and mundane and sexism diffuse and under‐recognized, Lillian (2007) observes how difficult it was for her in her research to find a concentrated, coherent sample of neoconservative sexist speech (p. 737). Here, I offer analysis of one such sample: the hate mail I received from readers of conservative publications and listeners to right‐wing talk radio (especially the top 10 talk‐radio programs, which include Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Medved; see “Top Talk Radio Audiences,” 2008).…”