Gender Pronouns v God, lawsuit on religious freedom - Admin Warning in the OP

Overheal

Tilden Katz wrote: »

In your example, you weren’t undergoing a scientific trial. Do you think you were?



You think the above is the same as taking part in a scientific trial?

It’s science so yes. Tell me how it wasn’t science?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have no idea how you've come to all these conclusions about what I think of this or that, particularly since many of "Cymro's opinions as posted by Jack" don't represent anything I actually think. Perhaps you'd better begin by being specific about which gender stereotypes you think I'm comfortable with?

I read your post, is how I came to the conclusions I did regarding the work you think needs to be done in disabusing children of what you consider to be harmful gender stereotypes that form the basis of gender dysphoria diagnosis rather than reinforcing them, and also letting young people know that that different sexualities are normal, acceptable, and "questioning" is almost expected in adolescence. It’s right there in your post -

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It seems that there is a lot of work that could be done in disabusing children of the harmful gender stereotypes that form the basis of gender dysphoria diagnosis, rather than reinforcing them, and also in letting young people know that different sexualities are normal, acceptable, and "questioning" is almost expected in adolescence. The fact that TRAs have managed to get the discourse to a place where even suggesting that has some people squawking "bigot" all over the place is a travesty.

I don’t know what gender stereotypes you’re comfortable with, let alone the ones you’re not, my point was referring to the amount of work you think needs to be done to disabuse children of the harmful gender stereotypes you believe form the basis of gender dysphoria diagnosis, rather than reinforcing them. What those gender stereotypes are, you don’t say, but it’s not unreasonable to conclude that you’re uncomfortable with them seeing as you see them as harmful and something that needs work to disabuse children of them.

It’s not unlike the teacher claiming that he doesn’t want to lie to children. Nobody is asking him to lie to children. It appears he wants children to lie to him so his beliefs about harmful gender stereotypes are reinforced.

He doesn’t appear to have any regard for the idea that the children aren’t lying to him when they’re telling him exactly who they are, and he’s complaining because he is obligated by his employer to respect their beliefs, which differ considerably from his own personal beliefs, because he believes he has the authority to impose his beliefs on other people because he believes God agrees with him.

Baggly

seamus wrote: »

Key word there being "optimise", Mr. "new" poster.

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Excuse me? So unsure of your position that you have to take a swipe? I am indeed NOT a new poster. I've nothing to hide there at all. Anything else you'd like to say on that, Seamus?

Mod

None of this has any bearing on the discussion at hand so please drop this aspect of your posts in favour of civil discussion as per the rest of the two respective posts I quoted.

There’s no science to most of this. Talking assessment isn’t a science. It’s just a checklist. We don’t have a scientific understanding of the mind.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know what gender stereotypes you’re comfortable with, let alone the ones you’re not

Quite.

Perhaps you could make your own points from your own perspective, then, instead of shredding my posts apart and reconstructing them into a convenient strawman?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Quite.

Perhaps you could make your own points from your own perspective, then, instead of shredding my posts apart and reconstructing them into a convenient strawman?

I did make my own points about your post from my own perspective? I didn’t post anything out of context nor did I attempt to comment on anything you didn’t say or try to put words in your mouth.

You asked me to be specific about what gender stereotypes I think you’re comfortable with, and I explained that my post wasn’t about the gender stereotypes you’re comfortable with that form the basis of gender dysphoria diagnosis, but rather the gender stereotypes you’re uncomfortable with that in your opinion are harmful which form the basis of gender dysphoria diagnosis, which children need to be disabused of.

You don’t give any specifics about what those stereotypes are, so I could hardly be expected to? I’m not a mind reader.

Tilden Katz

Overheal wrote: »

It’s science so yes. Tell me how it wasn’t science?

You yourself, as in your body, was part of a trial?

Overheal

Tilden Katz wrote: »

You yourself, as in your body, was part of a trial?

In a couple of those cases, yes. In one study I participated in my colleague was doing his PhD in studying cardiovascular exercise through engineering principles. His experiment put the participant under a high stress cardio activity (a treadmill bike) and then measured their kinetic energy output and biometrics and he was looking at the sustainable output rate for cardio work, eg. factors like how long it takes you to recover from a burst, or something to that effect, either way I was happy to help out, Vijay is an awesome guy:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343150096_Optimal_Pacing_of_a_Cyclist_in_a_Time_Trial_Based_on_Experimentally_Calibrated_Models_of_Fatigue_and_Recovery

Other studies you might find a bit less mundane, eg. my eyes have been part of a scientific study. We have a whole simulation lab as part of our packaging science center where the science of - well, packaging, and consumer psychology etc. are explored through the lens of science and engineering, hence the human tracking studies. Very popular activity on campus too, whoever was bankrolling that study paid participants pretty good in gift cards and signups were always filled quickly. eg:

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/2150/

Tilden Katz

Overheal wrote: »

In a couple of those cases, yes. In one study I participated in my colleague was doing his PhD in studying cardiovascular exercise through engineering principles. His experiment put the participant under a high stress cardio activity (a treadmill bike) and then measured their kinetic energy output and biometrics and he was looking at the sustainable output rate for cardio work, eg. factors like how long it takes you to recover from a burst, or something to that effect, either way I was happy to help out, Vijay is an awesome guy:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343150096_Optimal_Pacing_of_a_Cyclist_in_a_Time_Trial_Based_on_Experimentally_Calibrated_Models_of_Fatigue_and_Recovery

Other studies you might find a bit less mundane, eg. my eyes have been part of a scientific study. We have a whole simulation lab as part of our packaging science center where the science of - well, packaging, and consumer psychology etc. are explored through the lens of science and engineering, hence the human tracking studies. Very popular activity on campus too, whoever was bankrolling that study paid participants pretty good in gift cards and signups were always filled quickly. eg:

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/2150/

The heart study is a risk, for sure. But I still think being mentally mature should play a big part in deciding whether to take part in trials UNLESS we are talking something that will cause certain death if untreated, or very debilitating physical symptoms. And because the human brain doesn't finish maturing until the early 20s, there's an argument for even 18 being too young to consent to many clinical trials, IMO.

One eyed Jack

Tilden Katz wrote: »

The heart study is a risk, for sure. But I still think being mentally mature should play a big part in deciding whether to take part in trials UNLESS we are talking something that will cause certain death if untreated, or very debilitating physical symptoms. And because the human brain doesn't finish maturing until the early 20s, there's an argument for even 18 being too young to consent to many clinical trials, IMO.

Assessment of candidates suitability does play a big part in any clinical trials, not just in terms of their maturity, but their stage of development, lifestyle and a whole boatload of other criteria which form part of any assessment. It’s the whole point of considerations regarding the ethics of any treatment, to assess whether it should be permitted. In the case of children experiencing gender dysphoria to the degree that it warrants medical intervention, precisely because it is debilitating and having a sufficient negative impact upon their quality of life, then puberty blockers may be ethically permissible in those circumstances -


Conclusions

Despite the absence of clear clinical guidelines for transgender minors seeking medical treatment in the absence of parental consent, there is sufficient ethical precedent and clinical data to conclude that treatment should not be withheld when a minor is at risk of undue suffering. Because there is evidence to suggest dysphoria and associated comorbidities would be relieved by treatment, this logic aligns with Diekema’s criteria for over-riding parental consent and Mill’s Harm Principle. Although guidance is not law, the capacity of a transgender minor should be strongly advocated for in a matter consistent with a provider’s general treatment of adolescents in any other medical decision-making settings such as STI services and contraception. The clinician should consider the decision to pursue hormone therapy or surgery in relation to current guidelines, risks to the individual patient and the child’s decision-making capacity.


Medically assisted gender affirmation: when children and parents disagree


It would be unethical to force children to endure debilitating ill mental health for an indeterminate period and force them to undergo puberty when it’s determined the process would exacerbate their distress.

The argument based upon age isn’t a very compelling one, but the reason for the arbitrary age in law is because there has to be an arbitrary standard which allows for exceptional circumstances following an assessment by the Courts in order to assess the child’s capacity to form informed consent, and determine actions which are regarded as being is in their best interests in each individual case.

volchitsa

Overheal wrote: »

In a couple of those cases, yes. In one study I participated in my colleague was doing his PhD in studying cardiovascular exercise through engineering principles. His experiment put the participant under a high stress cardio activity (a treadmill bike) and then measured their kinetic energy output and biometrics and he was looking at the sustainable output rate for cardio work, eg. factors like how long it takes you to recover from a burst, or something to that effect, either way I was happy to help out, Vijay is an awesome guy:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343150096_Optimal_Pacing_of_a_Cyclist_in_a_Time_Trial_Based_on_Experimentally_Calibrated_Models_of_Fatigue_and_Recovery

Other studies you might find a bit less mundane, eg. my eyes have been part of a scientific study. We have a whole simulation lab as part of our packaging science center where the science of - well, packaging, and consumer psychology etc. are explored through the lens of science and engineering, hence the human tracking studies. Very popular activity on campus too, whoever was bankrolling that study paid participants pretty good in gift cards and signups were always filled quickly. eg:

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/2150/

TBH I don't understand what these studies (which definitely fall under the same defintion as other medical studies) have to do with your original post, which was about your work being submitted to a study? Was that a typo?

Tilden Katz

volchitsa wrote: »

TBH I don't understand what these studies (which definitely fall under the same defintion as other medical studies) have to do with your original post, which was about your work being submitted to a study? Was that a typo?

That’s how I ended up getting confused too.

Overheal

volchitsa wrote: »

TBH I don't understand what these studies (which definitely fall under the same defintion as other medical studies) have to do with your original post, which was about your work being submitted to a study? Was that a typo?

Oh, no it was just the most recent example in my head. Another PhD is/was working on a business sociology study about engineers in peer groups and individually do functional prototyping and black box modeling. I was videotaped for the exercise, I mean, but I don't regard that as 'my body' the area of focus was the engineering methodology I implemented.

Closer to home, an appeals court in the UK this morning turned over a prior tribunal ruling that gender critical views are "not worthy of respect in a democratic society", such that those who hold such beliefs are now legally protected from discrimination and harassment in employment and as service users.

Justice Choudhury ruled that under the European Convention on Human Rights, only extreme views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism are excluded from protection on the basis that they are not worthy of respect in a democratic society. He said “It is clear from Convention case law that…a person is free in a democratic society to hold any belief they wish, subject only to ‘some modest, objective minimum requirements’.”

Maya Forstater was fired in March for stating her belief that people cannot change their biological sex.

Tilden Katz

Deleted User wrote: »

Closer to home, an appeals court in the UK this morning turned over a prior tribunal ruling that gender critical views are "not worthy of respect in a democratic society", such that those who hold such beliefs are now legally protected from discrimination and harassment in employment and as service users.

Justice Choudhury ruled that under the European Convention on Human Rights, only extreme views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism are excluded from protection on the basis that they are not worthy of respect in a democratic society. He said “It is clear from Convention case law that…a person is free in a democratic society to hold any belief they wish, subject only to ‘some modest, objective minimum requirements’.”

Maya Forstater was fired in March for stating her belief that people cannot change their biological sex.

Oh wow, that is great news.

archfi

Deleted User wrote: »

Closer to home, an appeals court in the UK this morning turned over a prior tribunal ruling that gender critical views are "not worthy of respect in a democratic society", such that those who hold such beliefs are now legally protected from discrimination and harassment in employment and as service users.

Justice Choudhury ruled that under the European Convention on Human Rights, only extreme views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism are excluded from protection on the basis that they are not worthy of respect in a democratic society. He said “It is clear from Convention case law that…a person is free in a democratic society to hold any belief they wish, subject only to ‘some modest, objective minimum requirements’.”

Maya Forstater was fired in March for stating her belief that people cannot change their biological sex.

Absolutely fantastic news but it was what I expected.
Inch by inch, court case by court case, sanity is returning.
The vilification and lies told about that woman was/is mindblowing.

Quick correction - she wasn't fired in March, her contract was not renewed.

Tilden Katz

Deleted User wrote: »

Quick correction - she wasn't fired in March, her contract was not renewed.

Indeed. That's technically true. But if she could have otherwise reasonably expected to have her contract renewed, then she was as good as fired IMO.

suicide_circus

A victory for sanity

One eyed Jack

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Indeed. That's technically true. But if she could have otherwise reasonably expected to have her contract renewed, then she was as good as fired IMO.

She might well have thought it was reasonable that in spite of her behaviour, her contract would be renewed. Her employer at the time disagreed, and they had every right to disagree when an individual in their employment makes a liability of themselves. She wasn’t being discriminated against because of her beliefs. Her employer chose not to renew her contract because of her behaviour.

Today’s judgement doesn’t actually change a whole pile as while it means that what are considered “gender critical” beliefs amount to philosophical beliefs which are protected by equality and employment legislation, it also means that people who do not share those beliefs, are also protected from unlawful discrimination in equality and employment legislation.

Meanwhile, in Spain, the teacher in the opening post would do well to learn from the example these teachers are setting for their students -


Male Teachers in Spain Wear Skirts to Support Student Bullied for His Fashion Choices


Sure, they look ridiculous IMO, but I gather that’s kinda the point - they don’t care!

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Her employer chose not to renew her contract because of her behaviour.

Her behaviour of not agreeing with someone on twitter ,is a sackable offense now ,
Bollix they played the woke card which will likely see themselves giving Maya a big payout .
Nothing she said was offensive nor was she harassing or threating anyone ,

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Her behaviour of not agreeing with someone on twitter ,is a sackable offense now ,
Bollix they played the woke card which will likely see themselves giving Maya a big payout .
Nothing she said was offensive nor was she harassing or threating anyone ,

Well it’s understandable that you’d say that, but clearly not everyone feels the same way you do, and they complained about her behaviour.

Nothing to do with her employer being woke or any of the rest of it, simply that any employer has a duty of care for all their employees, and the right to protect their reputation, and if one of their employees continues their disruptive behaviour in spite of numerous disciplinary actions and warnings from their employer, then their employer is under no obligation to maintain their employment.

It’s not simply the case that someone can make a nuisance of themselves because they’re operating under the belief that they can’t be fired, they can! Except in this case it was simply that her employer decided not to renew her contract of employment.

Overheal

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Oh wow, that is great news.

It is. Sounds like that ruling was too broad. For example, it is not against the law to have racist thoughts, it's against the law to act on them. Similarly people hashing out differing views on gender doesn't make them criminals, but it doesn't give them special protections to hate on other people or to commit hate crimes.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but clearly not everyone feels the same way you do, and they complained about her behaviour.

Grown adults having different opinion one side believe they are above reproach and professional victims the other side people who use fact and science over opinions,
And only one side can complain to the police and employers .

Seems the judge sided with fact and common sense

jam_mac_jam

Overheal wrote: »

It is. Sounds like that ruling was too broad. For example, it is not against the law to have racist thoughts, it's against the law to act on them. Similarly people hashing out differing views on gender doesn't make them criminals, but it doesn't give them special protections to hate on other people or to commit hate crimes.

I think it had to be broad to protect the rights of those who may be discriminated against. While at the same time protecting the right of people to have a belief that many people share.

So you cannot be sacked for your belief (unless its outrageous like Nazism) but that has to be balanced by the rights of the people who may be discriminated if you act on them or talk about them.

Tilden Katz

Overheal wrote: »

It is. Sounds like that ruling was too broad. For example, it is not against the law to have racist thoughts, it's against the law to act on them. Similarly people hashing out differing views on gender doesn't make them criminals, but it doesn't give them special protections to hate on other people or to commit hate crimes.

Recognising the immutability of biological sex and stating that aloud is nothing like racism, whether that racism is expressed or not. We’re in trouble if the former is viewed as hateful. I can’t see why it would be. Aren’t we always being reminded that sex and gender are different?

One eyed Jack

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Recognising the immutability of biological sex and stating that aloud is nothing like racism, whether that racism is expressed or not. We’re in trouble if the former is viewed as hateful. I can’t see why it would be. Aren’t we always being reminded that sex and gender are different?

I think you’re missing the point tbh. Recognition of a belief in law as being a protected belief, in this case the belief that sex is immutable, is in exactly the same category as any other form of belief which is recognised and protected in law, and recognition of the opposite of those beliefs, or lack of belief - as in that sex is not an immutable characteristic, is equally protected in law.

Stating that aloud is exactly like stating any other belief aloud - it doesn’t mean that anyone is immune from the consequences of stating their beliefs aloud, or manifesting their beliefs in ways that infringe upon the equal rights of other people who do not share that belief.

Freedom of speech laws are a lot more tolerant in the US than they are in Europe, but even then that doesn’t mean anyone is free from the consequences of professing their beliefs. In Maya Forstaters circumstances, she is no more protected from the consequences of expressing her beliefs than the teacher in the school in the US is protected from the consequences of expressing his beliefs, their behaviour is the issue.

Employers could always and still do fire employees when they make themselves a liability, like the teacher in Eton who was fired for his behaviour, that there isn’t a word about now, this chap -

Eton College upholds decision to fire teacher in masculinity row

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eton College upholds decision to fire teacher in masculinity row

Totally different case and not the same ,

Maya was sacked for not agreeing with someone on twitter ,
She's right and the other's were wrong

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Totally different case and not the same ,

Maya was sacked for not agreeing with someone on twitter ,
She's right and the other's were wrong

It’s not a totally different case? Make yourself a liability for your employer, get fired for gross misconduct, the world moves on. Portray whatever narrative you wish in the meantime that makes you feel better.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Employers could always and still do fire employees when they make themselves a liability, like the teacher in Eton who was fired for his behaviour, that there isn’t a word about now, this chap -

Eton College upholds decision to fire teacher in masculinity row

I wouldn’t say there isn’t a word about him. More that there is nothing to report currently, pending employment tribunal.