Sacked doctor sues former employer for refusing to call trans-woman "she"

I acknowledged the point you made, budgese, from my very first reply to you. I then asked what the point you were making with that remark about men lactating in exceptional circumstance was, and of course, since your elusive point is non-sensical in connection to any point I myself have made, you then went on the defence of “you’re making stuff up”. But I’m glad you’re enjoying yourself - and so you should for the amount of energy you’re expanding in talking shite! :D

The decision appears to be based upon appeasing the feelings of a tiny number of pregnant women who are delusional… if you wish to put it in those terms.

Do you honestly imagine that your personal feelings should trump the feelings of other women because in your opinion they’re the women who are delusional and denying biological reality?

I don’t envy the effects of the cognitive dissonance which inevitably arises from arguing that your feelings about other people trump their feelings about themselves.

Ducking and dodging……that’s not what I said 😉, “woman with breasts”.

Women have breasts. It is not right, let alone consistent with biological reality, in the medical setting, pretending they don’t. And then OEJ above, goes and calls out my “cognitive dissonance”! 😂the world’s gone mad I tells ya, but I will leave it there. The pendulum always swings both ways.

That’s a nice little story, budgese, the only problem is it is utter fiction. You simply wanted to muddy the waters a bit, throw a little spanner in the works as it were, and then, because you couldn’t explain yourself or the point why you did, despite me inviting you to several times, you went to get personal, with this you are angry stuff. So now we are getting personal, does that make you happy? Or should we stick to the topic and you will finally reveal your elusive point behind “men lactating” in response to my point about how the medical language is changing? I won’t be holding my breath here.

I can think of better examples of my own madness at least, than acknowledging the reality that some women prefer to be referred to as men, and when they become pregnant, they prefer to be referred to using language which represents that reality, particularly in a medical setting such as a hospital.

The reality is that the example you used to demonstrate your point, referred to something entirely different from the point you were making that it was men demanding that terminology like ‘chest feeder’ and so on is used to refer to all women after they have given birth. That simply isn’t the case. It’s one hospital’s policy, hardly sufficient evidence to support the idea that the world has indeed gone mad.

The cognitive dissonance I was referring to is the fact that you’re presenting two different ideas, and how you choose to square those ideas will inevitably mean that the element of cognitive dissonance arises. You were claiming it was men who were delusional are behind the idea, when it’s not - it’s women, and whether you still wish to refer to them as delusional is up to you, not sure the fact that they’re pregnant has any bearing on your determination, but in any case, it’s still you imagining that your feelings about others trump their feelings about themselves, when in reality - everyone has the same right to freedom of expression as you do, and everyone’s right to freedom of expression is subject to the same limitations in law.

And then, maybe, the law changes to reflect “feelings” rather than biological reality… like I said, I grew up in a similar social environment so it is nothing new to me. You’re welcome to it, OEJ, however it’s not all it’s cracked up to be!

I dunno ‘bout the laws wherever you’re from seeitall, but the law always reflected feelings rather than biology or biological reality (not a term I’d use myself, but I understand what you mean, not gonna quibble).

Recognising the values of human dignity, freedom of expression and many other values which are based upon feelings are fundamental to concept of upholding the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration itself is not a legal instrument, but it acts as the foundation for Human Rights Law.

It would be untrue too to suggest that science isn’t based upon feelings because science is fundamentally based upon philosophy and politics and all sorts of beliefs about the nature of reality. I don’t mind admitting that I don’t tend to think too hard about all that stuff because it hurts my brain. I’m happy as I am, and when I encounter someone who isn’t, I would never encourage anyone to add to their misery by being a smartarse.

I just see no need for it. They can argue that they’re doing a delusional person a favour, or it’s for their own good, or it’s in the interests of society, but underlying all that is the simple reason they’re doing it is because they can get away with it in those circumstances. The point of law is to offer legal recourse and to arbitrate in disputes where someone feels they are being treated unfairly. Science has never been used to resolve disputes between people because scientific endeavour always raises more questions, than any dispute it has ever settled. There’s plenty of questions science could answer about humans, were it not for the fact that such experiments would generally be regarded as unethical or immoral.

You hardly need me to tell you what ethics and morality are based upon - the F word, which some people around here are so keen to dismiss when it comes to how they wish to treat other people, and only considered of utmost importance when it comes to how they wish to be treated themselves.

This is priceless… Anyone who has read that post of yours and with half a brain to engage knows exactly what it means. Including yourself, of course. The “hysterical” tactic has been tried before, and it always comes from a man, and never from an honest place of debate. It always fails in whatever it hopes to achieve (as insults usually do, to be fair). So don’t start imagining you are now entitled to anything from me. Go hang.

Great stuff. Now would you let up on the ole stereotypes about our sex and engage honestly and without getting personal? That’d be lovely. Or just put me on ignore because I’m here for a discussion and not for being insulted by being labelled angry, hysterical or making stuff up. How you feel that kind of posting style will advance your argument, I’ve no idea.