J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

ExMachina1000

mick087 wrote: »

In this day and age you have to be so careful what you say.
Its difficult to say anything without offending someone.
Opinions are not really wanted by growing groups.

I dont know where this will lead us but i dont believe for one minute it will lead to a better society.

Only if you care that no matter what you say someone is likely to be offended.

Let them be offended

mick087

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Only if you care that no matter what you say someone is likely to be offended.

Let them be offended

I would agree no matter what you say someone somewhere will be offended.

Im starting to believe in your view, let them be offended. Not there yet but on that path.

Bonniedog

_Godot_ wrote: »

Danny La Rue did drag, being trans is not drag.

Men in frocks. How can you tell?

_Godot_

Bonniedog wrote: »

Men in frocks. How can you tell?

Drag is over the top and meant to be entertaining, trans people are just trying to live their lives without harassment.

excludedbin

Terfs are physically incapable of not harassing trans people, though.

Danzy

excludedbin wrote: »

Terfs are physically incapable of not harassing trans people, though.

If it is physical it may have a medical cause.

ExMachina1000

mick087 wrote: »

I would agree no matter what you say someone somewhere will be offended.

Im starting to believe in your view, let them be offended. Not there yet but on that path.

What is the alternative?
Allow other people to decide what you should think and say.

No chance

One eyed Jack

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

What is the alternative?
Allow other people to decide what you should think and say.

No chance

The alternative is as it has always been, and will continue to be, that other people will decide whether what you’ve said constitutes an offence.

That’s the fundamental reason behind restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of speech - is that people have rights, but they also have a responsibility to be aware of how what they say has an impact on other people. In a democratic society that’s why there are limitations on what people can say, and not everything a person says will be regarded as being worthy of protection in law in a democratic society.

In other words - you could always think what you like anyway, nobody can compel you to think anything, but what you say or what you express, or your opinions, aren’t automatically protected by law, and there are consequences when your opinions are regarded as offensive. “Let other people be offended” is a fine mantra, so long as you’re also prepared to suffer the consequences on their behalf. If you’re not, then your “Let other people be offended” doesn’t amount to much more than a bullshìt statement that means nothing.

ExMachina1000

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The alternative is as it has always been that other people will decide whether what you’ve said constitutes an offence.

That’s the fundamental reason behind restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of speech - is that people have rights, but they also have a responsibility to be aware of how what they say has an impact on other people. In a democratic society that’s why there are limitations on what people can say, and not everything a person says will be regarded as being worthy of protection in law in a democratic society.

In other words - you could always think what you like anyway, nobody can compel you to think anything, but what you say or what you express, or your opinions, aren’t automatically protected by law, and there are consequences when your opinions are regarded as offensive. “Let other people be offended” is a fine mantra, so long as you’re also prepared to suffer the consequences on their behalf. If you’re not, then your “Let other people be offended” doesn’t amount to much more than a bullshìt statement that means nothing.

I'm not talking about running around screaming whatever comes into my head at people. Of course you are correct in that sense.

An example:
Man decides he wants to be a woman. That's fine. He can do as he pleases. It's his life.

Man demands that I now call him a woman. No I won't if I choose not to . I am under no obligation to play along. I can choose to think for myself thanks.

Tired Gardener

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I'm not talking about running around screaming whatever comes into my head at people. Of course you are correct in that sense.

An example:
Man decides he wants to be a woman. That's fine. He can do as he pleases. It's his life.

Man demands that I now call him a woman. No I won't if I choose not to . I am under no obligation to play along. I can choose to think for myself thanks.

Imagine if we had the same trend with colour blindness. Imagine if someone who saw yellow and orange as either the same colour or something else, and we had to accept their view as reality, along with using language to suit. So non colourblind people are now cis colour sighted, and to say that the colourblind person's perception isn't real is to be colourphobic.

Both are a physical condition, one is to do with a defect in the eye, the other is a mental health condition due to brain structure/development or at least my reading of Gender dysphoria leads me to think.

volchitsa

_Godot_ wrote: »

Drag is over the top and meant to be entertaining, trans people are just trying to live their lives without harassment.

I'm sure most are, but not all. Jessica Yaniv makes a point of harrassing females by taking (immigrant) beauticians to court for refusing to wax her (male) genitals, in some cases in the woman's own home where she works alone while minding her small children. She even pretended that she was having her period (a physical impossibility, as she doesn't have a female reproductive system) and wanted to know if the beautician would work around a tampon string. What was that about, if not humiliating and demeaning the woman?

Oh and she also tried to sue a female gynecologist for refusing to take her on as a patient. Again, mere harassment. Not a coincidence that it wasn't a male gynecologist either, I'm sure. Because there are plenty of those but obviously it just happened to be a female one. Yeah right.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather

One eyed Jack

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I'm not talking about running around screaming whatever comes into my head at people. Of course you are correct in that sense.

An example:
Man decides he wants to be a woman. That's fine. He can do as he pleases. It's his life.

Man demands that I now call him a woman. No I won't. I am under no obligation to play along. I can choose to think for myself thanks.

You’re certainly under no obligation to play along, and choosing not to, means there can in some circumstances be consequences for choosing not to play along, because your views aren’t considered worthy of being protected by law, and therefore in the workplace for example your employer can choose to terminate your contract of employment as they are under no obligation to maintain your employment when you choose to violate the terms of your employment in creating an unsafe and unpleasant environment for other employees.

That’s essentially what happened in Maya Forstaters case where she tried to claim that she was the victim of discrimination by her former employer. It was determined by the Employment Tribunal that she was not the victim of discrimination. Her former employers were within their rights to decide that they were not obligated to consider her application to continue her employment with their organisation.


Here’s a good explanation of the ruling in that case and what it actually means -


This ruling was purely about whether Forstater’s views count as a so-called protected belief, like religious faith, which employers can’t discriminate against someone for holding. And while she met four of five legal tests for that, the sticking point was her insistence that a trans woman is still a man even if she holds a GRC confirming her legal status as a woman.

That’s what Forstater thinks. It might be what a number of other people think. But it’s not what the law says and the judge ruled that Forstater’s desire to be able to refer to someone by the sex she felt appropriate, even if that created an “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”, failed the fifth test – that a protected belief can’t violate human dignity or conflict with fundamental rights. Put simply, those seeking the protection of the law can’t ignore the protection it affords others. Even the vulnerable must acknowledge that others can be vulnerable too.

Crucially, that doesn’t mean women can now be sacked just for criticising self-identification or for objecting to trans women having automatic access to women’s prisons and domestic violence shelters. But what it means is objections shouldn’t be based on arguing that trans women are men really. The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”, for example, from services used by rape victims or potentially traumatised women, just as the law currently allows. The central idea is that being a woman, trans or not, isn’t a licence to ride roughshod over the needs of others; that it comes with rights, but not infinite ones.


Maya Forstater’s case was about protected beliefs, not trans rights


Veganism too is presenting the same sort of legal quandary as to whether veganism amounts to protected beliefs for the purposes of whether a person can claim to have been the victim of discrimination as a consequence of their beliefs. There was a recent case in the UK in which it was determined that ethical veganism amounted to protected beliefs, but before it could be determined whether or not the complainant was the victim of discrimination, the employer backed down before the case was decided -


An “ethical vegan” has claimed a “victory for animal protection” after settling a case against his former employer at a tribunal.

Jordi Casamitjana, 55, alleged he was dismissed by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS), an anti-hunting charity, after raising concerns that its pension fund was being invested with firms that tested on animals and hurt the environment.

His case at Watford tribunal centre was settled on Monday when the LACS, which previously argued he was dismissed properly for gross misconduct, conceded he had done nothing wrong in raising his concerns.

A previous tribunal made the landmark ruling that ethical veganism was a philosophical belief and therefore a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

Speaking after the settlement, Casamitjana said: “This has been a great victory for all ethical vegans and animal protection. After nearly two years of litigation against the League Against Cruel Sports, I am extremely happy with the conclusion that we have secured.

“The case has established that ethical vegans are protected from discrimination, and I have received the acknowledgement I sought that my dismissal was based on my ethical veganism and was not justified or justifiable.”


'Ethical vegan' settles tribunal case against charity


The same circumstances regarding veganism at least would be unlikely to succeed under Irish law -


Jennifer Cashman: Is it legal in Ireland to discriminate against vegans?


I wouldn’t encourage anyone to test it though, in the same way as I wouldn’t encourage anyone to refer to Becky in accounts as the woman formerly known as Bertram. They could of course if they wanted to, continue to refer to Becky as Bertram, in spite of being asked not to, because they are of the opinion that a person cannot change their sex, but that opinion is not entitled to protection in law, and therefore they may continue to refer to Becky as Bertram, just not in their former place of employment having been fired for doing so.

Tired Gardener

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather

Stephen Fry is the voice of enlightenment that the world is so desperately in need of hearing more of.

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather

Yeah that rather ill-thought out attempt at being profound soundbite has come back to bite him in the arse many times over -


Stephen Fry criticised for telling 'self-pitying' abuse victims to grow up

Stephen Fry apologises for telling pitying abuse victims to 'grow up'


An obnoxious twat who has more times fallen foul of his own ideology than anyone has had to go looking for reasons to criticise his opinions.

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Imagine if we had the same trend with colour blindness. Imagine if someone who saw yellow and orange as either the same colour or something else, and we had to accept their view as reality, along with using language to suit. So non colourblind people are now cis colour sighted, and to say that the colourblind person's perception isn't real is to be colourphobic.

Both are a physical condition, one is to do with a defect in the eye, the other is a mental health condition due to brain structure/development or at least my reading of Gender dysphoria leads me to think.

Imagine you don’t have to go out of your way to be so obnoxious?

Is that honestly such a difficult concept for you?

I could understand it might be if you hold Stephen Fry up as the paragon of enlightenment.

Invidious

_Godot_ wrote: »

Drag is over the top and meant to be entertaining, trans people are just trying to live their lives without harassment.

If the only thing trans people wanted was to live their lives without harassment, I don't think we'd be seeing all this fuss.

Controversy arises when we're asked to believe that a man who identifies as a woman actually is a woman. This is a logical absurdity that I suspect most people, deep down, know is nonsense.

A man who is confused about his gender identity can decide to grow his hair long, wear a dress and makeup, and assume a woman's name. Naturally, he should be free do do these things without harassment or reprisal — it's a free country. But these things only create the appearance of femininity. They don't make him an actual woman, despite the insistence to the contrary.

I can identify as the Queen of England all I want, but if I show up at the gates of Buckingham Palace wearing a crown, I very much doubt I'll be getting in.

suicide_circus

what was the sequence of events that moved people from saying "transsexual" to "transgender"?

Tired Gardener

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm sure most are, but not all. Jessica Yaniv makes a point of harrassing females by taking (immigrant) beauticians to court for refusing to wax her (male) genitals, in some cases in the woman's own home where she works alone while minding her small children. She even pretended that she was having her period (a physical impossibility, as she doesn't have a female reproductive system) and wanted to know if the beautician would work around a tampon string. What was that about, if not humiliating and demeaning the woman?

Oh and she also tried to sue a female gynecologist for refusing to take her on as a patient. Again, mere harassment. Not a coincidence that it wasn't a male gynecologist either, I'm sure. Because there are plenty of those but obviously it just happened to be a female one. Yeah right.

Jessica Yaniv and people like her give the Transgender community a very bad reputation, and do more damage than good. I honestly think that their movement and community has been hijacked by some very hostile, nasty extremists.

The argument has gone from 'I have a condition called Gender dysphoria, treatment includes living as the opposite sex, please respect that', to 'I am the opposite sex, and you have to acknowledge this'.

This is my one and only objection with it, as this change from the vocal minority has turned the arguements and demands to an odd place.

Invidious

suicide_circus wrote: »

what was the sequence of events that moved people from saying "transsexual" to "transgender"?

Transsexual implies that the person has undergone hormonal or surgical treatment to alter their physiology.

Transgender is a broader category, implying that one can change gender without any medical interventions.

The shift happened because of a movement to make self-identification the paramount factor in determining someone's gender identity — not anatomy or hormonal makeup.

Tired Gardener

Invidious wrote: »

Transsexual implies that the person has undergone hormonal or surgical treatment to alter their physiology.

Transgender is a broader category, implying that one can change gender without any medical interventions.

The shift happened because of a movement to make self-identification the paramount factor in determining someone's gender identity — not anatomy or hormonal makeup.

Also there has been a steady confusion of sex and gender. Forms used to say sex, now they say gender. It is a slow shift in language that is shaping people's ideas.

Sex is binary, male or female. (Intersex isn't a third sex)
Sexual orientation is hetero, homo, or bi.
Gender is how we as individuals express our sexuality, so is very fluid.

Confusing gender and sex opens up a lot of issues.

ExMachina1000

It would be much easier if everyone was allowed to be who or whatever they choose but didn't expect or try and enforce everyone else to go along with it.

Everyone wins

suicide_circus

Invidious wrote: »

Transsexual implies that the person has undergone hormonal or surgical treatment to alter their physiology.

Transgender is a broader category, implying that one can change gender without any medical interventions.

The shift happened because of a movement to make self-identification the paramount factor in determining someone's gender identity — not anatomy or hormonal makeup.

good explanation

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

what was the sequence of events that moved people from saying "transsexual" to "transgender"?

Both terms have been used interchangeably since the ‘60s -


The term transsexual was introduced to English in 1949 by David Oliver Cauldwell and popularized by Harry Benjamin in 1966, around the same time transgender was coined and began to be popularized. Since the 1990s, transsexual has generally been used to refer to the subset of transgender people who desire to transition permanently to the gender with which they identify and who seek medical assistance (for example, sex reassignment surgery) with this.


Evolution of Transgender Terminology

suicide_circus

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Confusing gender and sex opens up a lot of issues.

They are in inextricably linked.

Tokyo

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Man demands that I now call him a woman. No I won't if I choose not to . I am under no obligation to play along. I can choose to think for myself thanks.

Admin Note - Please Read:

Do you feel this way about all potential hate speech, or just this issue? Do you feel this way about, say, an argument that black people should be enslaved (or exterminated) because they are not fully human, as long as it’s expressed calmly and without invective?

We've been down this road before with respect to pronoun usage, with the same arguments and righteous indignation in response. I've deleted a bunch of similar responses to my mod warning, but apparently some people can't let it go.

As has been posted on this site before, you are not being forced to use pronouns that you are not comfortable with (the irony here should not be lost on you or anyone else) but ARE being asked not to use what you have been told are the incorrect pronouns for this person. Refer to them/they if 'she' is beyond your reach.

This is not up for further debate, nor are mod or admin warnings. If you can't live with that, don't post. If posters continue with this line of posting, I'll presume that people are acting with willful ignorance and act accordingly.

Tired Gardener

suicide_circus wrote: »

They are in inextricably linked.

Not really, women can in some areas be very 'typical of their gender stereotypes', and in other areas more typical of their opposite gender stereotypes.

Gender is just a measure of how we express our sexuality. Which is as broad as it is long, so given that people are not easy to fit in a pigeon hole will exhibit a wide range of differences. Hence Gender being fluid.

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Also there has been a steady confusion of sex and gender. Forms used to say sex, now they say gender. It is a slow shift in language that is shaping people's ideas.

Sex is binary, male or female. (Intersex isn't a third sex)
Sexual orientation is hetero, homo, or bi.
Gender is how we as individuals express our sexuality, so is very fluid.

Confusing gender and sex opens up a lot of issues.

That explanation of gender is confusing as a persons gender identity will tell you nothing of their sexuality, let alone how anyone expresses their sexuality? Gender identity isn’t actually fluid at all, it’s just how people are choosing to define gender has been expanded to encompass a whole multitude of different ideas.

I’m fine with gender simply being nothing more than boy or girl, man or woman. Other people aren’t, and choose to reject the binary paradigm of gender in favour of identifying themselves as non-binary,

If being asked your gender on a form is confusing, then I’d suggest there were more fundamental issues underlying that confusion than simply identifying your gender when asked. Some forms even acknowledge this by allowing for a “prefer not to say” option.

No shifting ideas or any of the rest of it, some forms say sex, some forms say gender, some forms have a third option for those who would prefer not to disclose that information about themselves.

One thing I don't fully understand is how, since gender is an artificial construction in the first place, we can argue in the same breath that someone was misassigned a gender at birth, or that their gender is inherently woman, or man. Surely the latter argument would insist that gender is inherent to one's identity, and must be physiological.

I don't really understand that, but that's perhaps because I haven't looked into it in much detail. I'd have absolutely no difficulty in using whatever pronouns a person wants, it's such a tiny, insignificant act of courtesy ffs.

suicide_circus

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Not really, women can in some areas be very 'typical of their gender stereotypes', and in other areas more typical of their opposite gender stereotypes.

Gender is just a measure of how we express our sexuality. Which is as broad as it is long, so given that people are not easy to fit in a pigeon hole will exhibit a wide range of differences. Hence Gender being fluid.

No, sorry, I dont believe any of that i'm afraid. 99.9% of people with xy chromosomes are men. The rest, due to dysphoria or whatever, think that they are not men.