The Hazards of Belief

oldrnwisr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think I've made my position clear, so I'm not going to quote your whole post, but the idea that some girls are born with a penis, and some boys are born with a vagina, has no basis in science whatsoever. That's not mansplaining anything to you or to anyone else. It's reality, no matter what forum we're in.

I don't mean to drag this up when you've bowed out of this thread but I've been busy explaining the bible to Christians on another thread. It's just that regarding the bolded section above, you're wrong. Demonstrably wrong.

There are in fact several conditions which result in boys being born with vaginas (and vice versa).

For example, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is a condition which, most often develops from a mutation in the androgen receptor on the long arm of the X chromosome in males. The consequence of this is that the developing foetus doesn't respond to androgens resulting in undermasculinised or nonmasculinised genitalia.

Then there is male pseduohermaphroditism which most commonly results from a 5-alpha-reductase deficiency. Like AIS it leads to nonmasculinised external male genitalia albeit with internal male genitalia.

Then of course, there's conditions like 17-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, Klinefelter syndrome and many, many more. In fact, Wikipedia has a really good summary on both Intersex conditions and sexual development disorders which might be helpful in finding out what the science actually says.

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I don't mean to drag this up when you've bowed out of this thread but I've been busy explaining the bible to Christians on another thread. It's just that regarding the bolded section above, you're wrong. Demonstrably wrong.

There are in fact several conditions which result in boys being born with vaginas (and vice versa).

For example, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is a condition which, most often develops from a mutation in the androgen receptor on the long arm of the X chromosome in males. The consequence of this is that the developing foetus doesn't respond to androgens resulting in undermasculinised or nonmasculinised genitalia.

Then there is male pseduohermaphroditism which most commonly results from a 5-alpha-reductase deficiency. Like AIS it leads to nonmasculinised external male genitalia albeit with internal male genitalia.

Then of course, there's conditions like 17-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, Klinefelter syndrome and many, many more. In fact, Wikipedia has a really good summary on both Intersex conditions and sexual development disorders which might be helpful in finding out what the science actually says.

While informative, your post does not demonstrate that One Eyed Jack is wrong. Are you saying that these rare examples of people born with "nonmasculinised external male genitalia" were born as girls?

I think we should just accept that "intersex" is a thing, albeit rare, and do as they do in Germany; just leave that section on the birth cert blank .

As to legislation around the use of bathrooms etc, I think we should just leave that blank too, as is currently the case. Although Donald Trump was mentioned in an earlier post in this thread as being against transgender people on this issue, a closer examination of his policy will show that he is only against trying to legislate for bathroom usage.

oldrnwisr

recedite wrote: »

While informative, your post does not demonstrate that One Eyed Jack is wrong.

Well it kinda does. OEJ used the phrase "some boys are born with a vagina" and that there was no basis in science for this. However, the conditions I described do lead to situations where a male foetus (i.e. XY) is born with internal male genitalia (i.e. testes) and is outwardly female and develops as a female because it can't process androgen correctly. So wrong.

recedite wrote: »

Are you saying that these rare examples of people born with "nonmasculinised external male genitalia" were born as girls?

Yes. The outward appearance of these people would be female. This is Jane L. Goto, the former Operations Manager with the Intersex Society of North America. Jane's condition which resulted in an outward female appearance with "nonmasculinised external male genitalia was featured in the "Skin Deep" epsiode of House M.D. which discussed the condition.




Also, it's not that rare. The frequency depends on the condition responsible. If we're talking about conditions with partial or complete unmasculinised or unfeminised external genitalia then we're talking about a range of 1 in 1000 births for Klinefelter syndrome to 1 in 150,000 for complete gonadal dysgenesis. However, in terms of conditions like clitoromegaly or leidig cell hypoplasia where the person doesn't outwardly present as either male or female to some degree, then the average is 1 in 100 births. So we're talking about something that can be as common as cleft palate or as rare as identical triplets.

recedite wrote: »

I think we should just accept that "intersex" is a thing, albeit rare, and do as they do in Germany; just leave that section on the birth cert blank .

As to legislation around the use of bathrooms etc, I think we should just leave that blank too, as is currently the case. Although Donald Trump was mentioned in an earlier post in this thread as being against transgender people on this issue, a closer examination of his policy will show that he is only against trying to legislate for bathroom usage.

Well, that's nothing to do with the science of the matter. That's a political and social justice issue. I was commenting on OEJ's claim about what science has to say on the matter.

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, the conditions I described do lead to situations where a male foetus (i.e. XY) is born with internal male genitalia (i.e. testes) and is outwardly female and develops as a female because it can't process androgen correctly...... The outward appearance of these people would be female.

I still would not say they were born as girls though. I would say they were neither boy nor girl.
Granted, the person in the photo appears female, but she seems to self identify as "intersex" (if I understand the article correctly). And going by the xy chromsome definition, she would be male. I would not consider that definition to be definitive though.

On a philosophical point, your argument seems to be that in the absence of full "maleness" the human condition defaults to female, which I would dispute. "Femaleness" has certain attributes in itself which maleness does not have. A girl is not merely a young human person who can't process androgen effectively.

Also I would point out that the gender a person is born with is mainly but not completely responsible for their appearance/gender as an adult.
A man castrated at age 30 would still have the typical appearance of a man afterwards, but if the same person was castrated at 1 year old, they would be quite different at age 30.

While it is certainly possible to steer gender in one particular direction through chemical and surgical means, I'm not convinced that it is desirable to do so. Certainly not by diverting money from the HSE which could be used for "curing" people of genuine ailments.

looksee

I am not sure whether I am following this argument recidite, but are you suggesting that if a baby is born with some sort of confused biology that makes their sex/ gender uncertain or incorrectly indicated they should be left to get on with it, so that a baby born with say a heart defect can get the appropriate treatment to lead a full and healthy life?

Mark Hamill

silverharp wrote: »

seriously though I think that is a bit of a pedantic rebuttal. he did say "born with" so that would reasonably imply that no future accidents or "bits" not working would have any bearing on whether someone was born a boy or a girl or a son or daughter

It's not pedantic and I don't think it was clear that he meant post-birth changes to gender organs would have no effect on the gender of the individual, hence I asked the question. If the loss of a sex organ after birth doesn't automatically change someone's gender, why does the presence of the same sex organ at birth automatically define it?

silverharp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's not pedantic and I don't think it was clear that he meant post-birth changes to gender organs would have no effect on the gender of the individual, hence I asked the question. If the loss of a sex organ after birth doesn't automatically change someone's gender, why does the presence of the same sex organ at birth automatically define it?

humans are a 2 sex species where females/women have at some time or ought to have the capacity to have children but cant fertilize an egg and where males/men at some time have the capacity or ought to have the capacity to fertilize an egg but cant get pregnant. I don't think the point is that the "maleness" is all contained in the penis, its that the penis is an obvious sex identifier and indicates that the person is male and has a male body, and even if someone lost their lower body in an accident they would still be male.

If it came to a newspaper headline that said " man gets pregnant" Ill interpret that as a woman got pregnant or a trans man got pregnant but certainly not a male.


like so, I didn't even bother reading the details but in reality a female got pregnant who I assume says they are transgender.



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2560070/british-man-20-will-be-the-first-to-give-birth-to-a-baby-thanks-to-sperm-donor-he-found-on-facebook/

'I'M FOUR MONTHS PREGNANT' British man, 20, will be the first to give BIRTH thanks to sperm donor he found on Facebook

oscarBravo

silverharp wrote: »

...in reality a female got pregnant who I assume says they are transgender.

I'm sure the transgender community is only delighted to have people who can helpfully explain their "real" gender to them.

volchitsa

looksee wrote: »

I am not sure whether I am following this argument recidite, but are you suggesting that if a baby is born with some sort of confused biology that makes their sex/ gender uncertain or incorrectly indicated they should be left to get on with it, so that a baby born with say a heart defect can get the appropriate treatment to lead a full and healthy life?

Thing is, it's not like heart surgery where there's a cure, and the benefits of surgery so clearly out weigh the risks. A different example of surgery would be a child in my extended family who was born with a club foot: initially they said she'd have surgery when she got older, and in the meantime she had intensive physiotherapy on the foot.

To cut a long story short, she still has a visible deformity, but since she can now run and play with the other children, according to the specialists the surgery involved is so complicated and recovery so painful, and in the end unlikely to give significantly better results than the physiotherapy has that they're now advising no surgery at all.

From what I read of intersex (though TBH I only learned of its existence a few years ago!) surgery is often more a way of reassuring the parents by removing the strangeness of the child's genitals, but is extremely painful and not always very successful in terms of function.

recedite

looksee wrote: »

I am not sure whether I am following this argument recidite, but are you suggesting that if a baby is born with some sort of confused biology that makes their sex/ gender uncertain or incorrectly indicated they should be left to get on with it, so that a baby born with say a heart defect can get the appropriate treatment to lead a full and healthy life?

Yes,exactly.
The baby with a heart defect can get lifesaving treatment with the money.
Or, the intersex baby can get treatment which makes them more acceptable to society. Which is more deserving, given that funds are strictly limited in the public health system?

Nobody tries to cure gays anymore, why try to cure intersex?
Maybe when they are older, it might be treated like orthodontics, ie spend their own money unless there is some serious health concern in which case the HSE could fund it.

I didn't even bother reading the details but in reality a female got pregnant who I assume says they are transgender.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/256007...d-on-facebook/

The former Asda worker, born a girl 20 years ago, is legally male and has begun hormone treatment.

Where does an ASDA worker get the money to change from female to male, and then back to female again?
I know of bona fide women who can't afford fertility treatment.
I'd be annoyed if I was paying taxes in the UK to fund this nonsense.
If people are paying for this stuff privately I have no objection, like I have no objection to them buying cosmetic surgery, or yachts or helicopters.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

The baby with a heart defect can get lifesaving treatment with the money.
Or, the intersex baby can get treatment which makes them more acceptable to society. Which is more deserving, given that funds are strictly limited in the public health system?

"I'm sorry Mr & Mrs Smith, we had to let your baby die of her heart defect because we had spent the money on a baby who didn't deserve it."

I seem to have missed that headline. Maybe there was a coverup.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

"I'm sorry Mr & Mrs Smith, we had to let your baby die of her heart defect because we had spent the money on a baby who didn't deserve it."

I seem to have missed that headline. Maybe there was a coverup.

A friend of mine in school had a hole in his heart. He died.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

A friend of mine in school had a hole in his heart. He died.

...because of money spent on an undeserving child?

recedite

No idea, I was only a kid myself at the time.

You seem to be laughing at the idea that somebody might die in the public system because the resources weren't available to give them adequate treatment. But people die while on waiting lists. And others can't access the necessary medication because its too expensive and HSE won't provide it. The HSE has to make difficult decisions because resources are limited.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

You seem to be laughing at the idea that somebody might die in the public system because the resources weren't available to give them adequate treatment. But people die while on waiting lists. And others can't access the necessary medication because its too expensive and HSE won't provide it. The HSE has to make difficult decisions because resources are limited.

I'm not laughing. You've suggested that some children are more deserving of treatment than others.

Would you advocate cancelling hip replacements to pay for operations on children with heart defects?

Mark Hamill

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not laughing. You've suggested that some children are more deserving of treatment than others.

Would you advocate cancelling hip replacements to pay for operations on children with heart defects?

Why stop there. Should we stop funding things like roadworks or parks because that money could be spent on surgery?

MrPudding

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why stop there. Should we stop funding things like roadworks or parks because that money could be spent on surgery?

The argument "if we fund this kid's treatment for x then this other kid will die of y" reminds me of the argument trotted out in the run up to the SSM legislation in the UK, "does the government have nothing better to do?", as if it can only do one thing at a time.

I don't work in healthcare, so my simplistic view is, if x and y treatment are valid treatments and available through the health service, but a choice has to be made to the effect of, if we do x for this person then we can't afford to do y for that other person, then that health service does not have enough money.

MrP

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If a boy has some sort of accident and loses his penis, is he no longer a boy? What does he become?

I suppose the priesthood is always open to him.

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't work in healthcare, so my simplistic view is, if x and y treatment are valid treatments and available through the health service, but a choice has to be made to the effect of, if we do x for this person then we can't afford to do y for that other person, then that health service is employing too many managers, administrators, solicitors and petty bureaucrats and not enough nurses, doctors and surgeons

FYP

volchitsa

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not laughing. You've suggested that some children are more deserving of treatment than others.

Would you advocate cancelling hip replacements to pay for operations on children with heart defects?

You're missing the point that gender reassignment surgery doesn't work well, and in that case it absolutely does happen that treatment is refused on cost vs outcomes, certainly in the NHS with NICE.

Perhaps all treatments are available in the ROI regardless of cost compared to expected outcome, but if so, I'd say perhaps they shouldn't be.

kylith

robindch wrote: »

I suppose the priesthood is always open to him.

Nah, the bible is very clear that no-one with mangled genitals can approach the altar.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If a boy has some sort of accident and loses his penis, is he no longer a boy? What does he become?

I suppose the priesthood is always open to him.

Nah, the bible is very clear that no-one with mangled genitals can approach the altar.

"Things were different back then"(tm)

Hotblack Desiato

But Jews all have mangled genitals...

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But Jews all have mangled genitals...

The Intelligent Designer must have messed up his design.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

The Intelligent Designer must have messed up his design.

Presumably foreskins are a result of the fall.

MrP

recedite

robindch wrote: »

The Intelligent Designer must have messed up his design.

6000 years ago, there was a lack of foresight, and an oversupply of foreskins.

robindch

In the wake of events in Holland over the last week, the Turkish foreign minister explains that there will soon be "holy war"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-elections-netherlands-geert-wilders-freedom-party-turkey-fascist-no-difference-rallies-islam-a7632571.html

Independent wrote:

Mevlut Cavusoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister, did not welcome the victory for Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s centre-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD).

“Now the election is over in the Netherlands...when you look at the many parties you see there is no difference between the social democrats and fascist Wilders,” he said according to a translation by Hurriyet.

“All have the same mentality. Where will you go? Where are you taking Europe? You have begun to collapse Europe. You are dragging Europe into the abyss. Holy wars will soon begin in Europe.”

recedite

He must have missed the beginning. Numerous jihadi attacks already.

Hotblack Desiato

Turkey really has gone down the sh*tter the last dozen years or so, and it's sad to see.

Jan_de_Bakker

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

So I was going to open a thread on this but maybe best just to post here.
A few years back my wife found out her brother had gotten into the Evangelists
really heavily - he had just split up with his girlfriend and his business was failing.
Anyway, he´s doing well now all debts paid off and working in a new job - he seems to
be over the break up too.
But he´s *really* into this Evangelist stuff now - a real bible basher.
I wouldn´t mind if he kept it personal - and he has been mostly but lately
hes inviting us to these barbeques or other events associated with
the church.
He´s also started giving us bibles and religious bookmarks, calendars etc...
We have 2 kids and seems like he is trying to spread the word.

Today my wife was talking to him and we couldn't believe how committed he is to it -
apparently we are going to hell - for not believing - he said why would God welcome
us into eternity if we don't believe in him ?
He seemed genuinely offended when my wife told him she doesn't believe in God - at least
not the man made organised religion kind of God.

Tried explaining that why would we go to hell when we are good people, why would such a powerful
being be so petty ? - NO .. it´s Gods word and thats that ... the Bible is the word of God
not of men ..

He was shocked that we "believed" in evolution - he then showed complete ignorance of evolution like
"How come a monkey doesn't have a human baby .... how could the eye form by pure chance .... ¨
Forgot to explain the whole shared ancestor thing but I don't think there would be much point.

Also he has conversations with God every day - I mean if he said this about Julios Ceaser or Shakespeare
he would be classed as mentally ill...

I feel bad for the guy because someone has manipulated him into believing this drivel (he wasn´t religious
untill he has about 30 or so..) they got him at a vulnerable time etc.

At the same time, he isn't doing that much harm - allthough we may have problems if he starts trying to preach
to the kids ... lets see..

I was thinking of getting a copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins - but that would be hitting it with a sledgehammer
the same as convincing me to read the bible and take it seriously.. my wife thinks the only way to get him out
is by talking to someone else who was in it in the past and has since got out.

Anyway, was just thinking of it being a good example of a hazard of belief.

Too many people think religion is harmless - I actually think at this stage he would be afraid to leave, he is convinced
of Hells existence.

So he has started leaving religious books in the babies pram now .... for my wife to pick up - real mad stuff too .

This is what happens when you accept previous smaller "gifts" from these nutjobs.

I think a copy of The God Delusion will be coming his way soon - not to convert him of course, but to make him stop sending us ****e.

pauldla

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

So he has started leaving religious books in the babies pram now .... for my wife to pick up - real mad stuff too .

This is what happens when you accept previous smaller "gifts" from these nutjobs.

I think a copy of The God Delusion will be coming his way soon - not to convert him of course, but to make him stop sending us ****e.

God Is Not Great might be better, I find Dawkins can be a little shrill at times...

kylith

pauldla wrote: »

God Is Not Great might be better, I find Dawkins can be a little shrill at times...

Or a nice DVD explaining evolution in simple terms.

Jan_de_Bakker

Canada passes m103 bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103 - effectively making it a crime to criticise Islam.
This is the end of free speech, when one group is put above criticism - tyranny isn't far behind.

Astounding times we live in , just imagine if a white supremacist had murdered 4 people in London and then a law was passed
to make it illegal to mock the alt. right.

Pherekydes

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Canada passes m103 bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103) - effectively making it a crime to criticise Islam.
This is the end of free speech, when one group is put above criticism - tyranny isn't far behind.

Astounding times we live in , just imagine if a white supremacist had murdered 4 people in London and then a law was passed
to make it illegal to mock the alt. right.

From the link (which has an extra ')' which could be removed):

Others have accused M-103 of going against free speech[10] and leading to "blasphemy laws".[4] This was argued by Brad Trost[11] and Charles McVety.[12]

Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose repudiated such claims and said: "To be clear, this is not a 'bill' nor a 'law'. It does not 'introduce Sharia law' as some people have suggested nor would it 'ban freedom of speech'." The Canadian Civil Liberties Association also said that M-103 does not restrict free speech in any way.

Peregrinus

For those who care about the truth:

Motion 103 does not "effectively make it a crime to criticise Islam". It doesn't even do that ineffectively; it doesn't create any crimes at all. it calls for further study of certain issues.

Nor does it "put one group above criticism"; it condemns " Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination" and requests a Parliamentary committee to study how to promote "evidence-based policy-making" and the "collection of data" that will help develop a strategy to "better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

I can see why that would infuriate and terrify the alt-right; they last thing they want is the collection of data that will make enable evidence-based policy, and defending human rights is absolute anathema to them. But it's all radically different from what Jan says.

I don't know where Jan is getting his information from, but wherever it is he should stop using that source immediately; they are flat-out lying to him. I'm sure he won't like that.

Jan_de_Bakker

Thin end of the wedge ...

Jan_de_Bakker

Peregrinus wrote: »

For those who care about the truth:

Motion 103 does not "effectively make it a crime to criticise Islam". It doesn't even do that ineffectively; it doesn't create any crimes at all. it calls for further study of certain issues.

Nor does it "put one group above criticism"; it condemns " Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination" and requests a Parliamentary committee to study how to promote "evidence-based policy-making" and the "collection of data" that will help develop a strategy to "better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

I can see why that would infuriate and terrify the alt-right; they last thing they want is the collection of data that will make enable evidence-based policy, and defending human rights is absolute anathema to them. But it's all radically different from what Jan says.

I don't know where Jan is getting his information from, but wherever it is he should stop using that source immediately; they are flat-out lying to him. I'm sure he won't like that.

From Gad Saad ... I trust him ..

https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/845046320339599361

Peregrinus

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Thin end of the wedge ...

Yes. You start thinking that Donald Trump might have a point, and you end up believing any old sh!te that the alt-right spews out.

Peregrinus

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

From Gad Saad ... I trust him ..

If Gad Saad, told you this, your trust in him is clearly misplaced.

Jan_de_Bakker

So wait now Gad Saad is the alt. right ?

I was using the alt. right as an extreme example in the opposite end of the spectrum ...

Peregrinus

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

So wait now Gad Saad is the alt. right ?

If what you said in post 8435 is what you got from Gad Saad, then Gad Saad is peddling falsehoods, and your trust in him is misplaced.

Is Gad Saad "the alt-right"? Well, not all of it, obviously. But if he's the source for what you said in post 8435, I'm pretty comfortable bracketing him in the alt-right. Who else would peddle that sh!te?

Jan_de_Bakker

So how do you feel about the Irish blasphemy law ?

Peregrinus

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

So how do you feel about the Irish blasphemy law ?

I oppose it.

M-103 is not a blasphemy law and does not call for a blasphemy law, so I'm not sure that your question has much relevance to the present discussion.

Jan_de_Bakker

Peregrinus wrote: »

I oppose it.

M-103 is not a blasphemy law and does not call for a blasphemy law, so I'm not sure that your question has much relevance to the present discussion.

hmmmmmm

I think we are playing with semantics and words here ...

silverharp

it is still worrying, if Canada had just passed a motion to "look into" reducing gay rights. people would lose their minds, but relax they are only looking into it wouldnt fly

Peregrinus

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

hmmmmmm

I think we are playing with semantics and words here ...

I don't.

The information you posted in post 8435 is flat-out false. If you have any intellectual integrity you should withdraw it. Parse that as semantically as you like; other boardies will have no difficulty in grasping my meaning.

Jan_de_Bakker

Khalid’s motion calls on the government to do three things:

Condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.

Whats the definition of Islamaphobia here ?
I for one think its quite reasonable to fear Islam giving the amount of terror
attacks attributed to it over the last decades ....at least to be concerned - not talking about a witch hunt.

Quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.
Hate ? - genuine concern maybe ??

Compel the Commons heritage committee to develop a government-wide approach for reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia.

More of the same nonsense ...

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

it is still worrying, if Canada had just passed a motion to "look into" reducing gay rights. people would lose their minds, but relax they are only looking into it wouldnt fly

Your comment might have some relevance if Canada had just passed a motion to "look into" reducing any rights at all. This motion explicitly seeks to reduce or eliminate all forms of discrimination and to promote the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't see how you can possibly think that's analogous to reducing gay rights.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your comment might have some relevance if Canada had just passed a motion to "look into" reducing any rights at all. This motion explicitly seeks to reduce or eliminate all forms of discrimination and to promote the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't see how you can possibly think that's analogous to reducing gay rights.

the obvious question is will it reduce free speech, that is a right that is seen as pivotal for the West. What if they "look into" that and decide that is a right that can be reduced

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

the obvious question is will it reduce free speech, that is a right that is seen as pivotal for the West. What if they "look into" that and decide that is a right that can be reduced

So we shouldn't investigate ways to combat racial and religious discrimination promote human rights, in case that might lead somebody to suggest some restriction on speech? Is that what you're saying here, or am I misunderstanding you?