4 year olds able to change gender in Scotland

You appear to be using a rather unique understanding of gaslighting that I’m not familiar with? As I understand the term, it is the idea of making someone question their reality, and I can’t think of many better examples than trying to coerce someone to behave as though they believe something they don’t -

Gaslighting is a colloquialism that is loosely defined as making someone question their reality.

The term is also used, informally, to describe someone (a "gaslighter") who persistently puts forth a false narrative which leads another person (or a group of people) to doubt their own perceptions to the extent that they become disoriented and distressed. This dynamic is generally only possible when the audience is vulnerable such as in unequal power relationships or when the audience is fearful of the losses associated with challenging the false narrative. Gaslighting is not necessarily malicious or intentional, although in some cases it is.

That’s not the whole point of rights at all, it is the point of one right - the right to be protected from unlawful discrimination.

I don’t think you’re advocating that anyone be deprived of the right to freedom of thought, but rather you appear to be arguing that anyone should have the right to compel other people to behave in a manner which is inconsistent with their own beliefs, which isn’t a right that anyone actually has, and certainly it’s not a right that people who are transgender are entitled to without granting that same right to everyone in society.

However, because the point of human rights is recognising human dignity and respect for all humans equally, this means that “trans rights” and whatever you wish to assign to that idea, are not more important than recognition of human rights.

I don’t think you’re advocating that anyone be deprived of the right to freedom of thought, but rather you appear to be arguing that anyone should have the right to compel other people to behave in a manner which is inconsistent with their own beliefs, which isn’t a right that anyone actually has, and certainly it’s not a right that people who are transgender are entitled to without granting that same right to everyone in society.

Can you not have so many clauses in your statements?

So, do people have a right to be called by the name they wish to be called by? And referred to the pronouns they wish to use? I'd certainly wouldn't agree with any trans activitists that demand non trans individuals to go by cis, if that is what you are talking about. I don't think that what is being wished for.

And I do not believe trans rights are more important than human rights.

Your first point I think we agree on as it applies to anyone, that’s just standard stuff.

But then you go on to ask why do trans people need to seek my approval which isn’t something I’ve ever argued? They don’t need to seek my approval, and the point I was making is that I don’t need theirs either. If anyone’s idea of respect is predicated upon only respect for those people who agree with them, then that’s not respect, it’s coercion.

I’m not denying anyone their rights at all, they’re perfectly free to refer to themselves however they wish. Nobody has the right to compel anyone to agree with them or to support them or anything else. I’m not interested in denying anyone their rights, regardless of whether they’re transgender or not.

It really is simple stuff, but you appear to think the same standards which apply to everyone, don’t also apply to you. Whatever happened to -

You do not have to support my ideology. As a basic human right, you should be allowed do what you like to make you happy, as long as it doesnt interfere with another's ability to pursue their happiness.

It doesn’t matter that you contradict yourself and think it only applies to people who live their lives according to your standards, because human rights law recognises that the same standard applies to everyone.

The answer to your question is yes, they do. However the point I am making is that nobody has the right to compel anyone to do so. Everyone also has the right to tell someone who tries to compel them to do something they don’t want to do, to jog on, and let that be the end of it.

However, if a person persists in demanding that another person adhere to their beliefs, then that can constitute harassment.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of discussing something with a child. Respecting a child's wishes is not the same as discussing something with them.

This is where the topic gets interesting/confusing for me.

In the UK (where I live, I appreciate most on here are in Ireland) the Maya Forstater judgement a few months ago ruled that Gender Critical beliefs were protected in law. However, the judge was keen to point out that this didn't give a licence for anyone to misgender others in the workplace with impunity and that employment tribunals would decide on a case-by-case basis of where the line goes in terms of what constitutes discrimination or harassment (if I interpret the judgement correctly, which I may not have: point b top of page 4 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf)

So it would seem that, in the UK at least, people are somewhat compelled to toe the line in a workplace setting, if they want to keep themselves out of trouble. I'd think this is quite easily avoided since it's easy enough to just refer to someone by name without any mention of sex, gender or pronouns. Not that I want people to be getting into barneys about this in work, but I would be curious as to how these employment tribunals would shake out if and when they take place.

Open to correction on any of the above - you seem to have quite a good knowledge of the law and have always appreciated your input on that side of this topic. It's greatly amused me seeing you labelled as some kind of gender ideology fanatic in previous threads because of your steadfast dedication to the legal sides of these arguments, when I'm fairly sure you've told me in other threads you're both a conservative and quite religious.

Your definition of transphobe is perfectly reasonable and completely aligns with how the majority now use "...phobia".

But it's not surprising that it offends the people it describes.

I'm racist. I believe that white people by their biology are better than black and other races. I believe skull sizes allows for their greater brain development and superior intellect as a consequence. Civil rights activism demanding that blacks are viewed as equal is transgressing my basic human right as someone with an proud racist ideology.

The civil rights activists even are exceeding the most basic human rights as they are compelling me to buy into their ideology.

That is your position re trans rights?

Yeah no ,

You were wrong and no matter how you try to twist and turn ,it doesn't change that fact.

I'm ignoring your replies from this point ...

No. It clearly is not my view on civil or trans rights. You are just pettyfogging and not answering the question. I'll rephrase.

I'm racist. I believe that white people by their biology are better than black and other races. I believe skull sizes allows for their greater brain development and superior intellect as a consequence. Civil rights activism demanding that blacks are viewed as equal is transgressing my basic human right as someone with an proud racist ideology.

The civil rights activists even are exceeding the most basic human rights as they are compelling me to buy into their ideology.

How does the above differ from your contention that those advocating for trans rights are compelling you to buy into their ideology?

Depends upon the specifics of each case really. In Maya Forstaters case she wasn’t being unfairly discriminated against by her employer who based their reasoning on the fact that she was creating a hostile work environment. In any case employers are responsible for preventing bullying and harassment in the workplace -

It’s also easily avoided by making it clear to the person that one does not subscribe to their ideology or share their philosophy or beliefs. It’s up to an employer in those circumstances to determine the next course of action, and depending upon the outcome of that action, an employee has the choice of whether or not they wish to pursue a case against their employer on the basis that they are being treated less favourably or unfairly in those circumstances.

I wouldn’t encourage anyone to interfere with the rights of anyone else to be provided with a safe working environment and so on, but every employee has that right, not just particular employees on the basis of any particular characteristics or philosophical beliefs. The judgement in the Forstater appeal also means that anyone who does not share or subscribe to or hold gender critical beliefs is also protected from unlawful discrimination on the same basis.

The decision with regard to whether or not ethical veganism is a philosophical belief worthy of protection is a far more interesting case IMO than the decision in the Forstater case tbh -