Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

I'd be willing to consider that the artist may not have been the best of critical thinkers. Part of the problem is that when someone says something that has the tiniest bit of purchase, the lunatics grab it, redefine it and push it back out. So we leap from JK Rowling thinks we should use the word "woman" to "JK Rowling wans trans genocide" within a couple of minutes. No one who wants it to be true bothers to fact check (facts being so last year).

The troubling aspect is that, as mentioned previously, we have reached a point where no public figure will dare to disagree with the zeitgeist for fear of never working again - unless they are loaded or just don't care. We also have the issue that any attempt at discussion is reduced to the emotive "you want all trans people dead", "if you say anything trans people will die", "no you can't meet", "no you can't talk", "no you aren't allowed an opinion" etc.

Dare to suggest that care should be taken when offering surgery and hormones to young people and suddenly you are the modern equivalent of Goebbels, and if you are also female then deserver to be raped / killed / beheaded etc

And as you say, you also have the right wing fascists trying to use it as a whipping stick for hatred, the latest aspect appearing to be that Drag Queens and transwomen are considered the same thing, however much they absolutely aren't, unless you are one of those psychotic types perhaps like "Barbie Kardashian".

It's a Punch and Judy show that is no better and no worse that Prime Ministers Questions on Wednesdays at lunchtime that is beamed to our screens. Nobody feels required to use critical thinking anymore and 'free speech' has become weaponised to mean win the argument by means of abusing your opponent or the group that you perceive they identify with.

Rowling, Stock, Forstater and others are no innocents. Under a veil of pretended truth and faux politeness they are attacking people's rights to live lawfully under convention rights. While there are some women's rights that were indeed 'hard won', the right to use a publicly accessible toilet wasn't one of them. In fact the law says that such is the right of a pregnant woman to pee anywhere, that she can insist on peeing in a policeman's helmet is deemed to be true.

Likewise, most sensibly the law says that it is the right of a woman to feed her baby anywhere by either means, and the right of an infant to be fed. However there are those who are made uncomfortable by the sight which is one of the most natural of all. Breasts are not genitals. And yet Nigel Farage waded into an argument about a woman who tried to breast feed her baby in a cafe saying that mothers should breast feed their babies in the toilet because it makes him uncomfortable. Well tough titty Nigel, just turn your chair around or grow up.

Much has been made by that one activists who held up a placard saying 'decapitate TERFS'. They shouldn't have done so in my own opinion because they then stooped to the level of the person they were replying to. I'm not so bothered about 'TERF' it is a low level slur - but calling for decapitation is not acceptable, but let's be fair, the women who were there reading from Mein Kampf and holding up placards calling for a 'final solution' were using acceptable behaviour either ... and then to do deny that this has its roots in fascism. This was bound to get the attention of the neo-Nazis who were sure to start rocking up to support gender critical women. Was this the plan, or not? It's certainly arguable.

Rowling is arguing that the existence of trans women is undermining the word 'women' to such extent that it has no meaning and that therefore the rights of women are being made extinct. As reasoning goes this is so very poor, especially from an author. In law trans women are included as women, but biology is not so neglected by law that cis women are no longer women. It's just nonsense.

She repeats the lies of Forstater - that she was sacked by her employer for using free speech to speak about women's rights. It's a lie. The word 'sacked' is bandied around even by Starmer who really should no better. One can not be sacked from a position which is not employment. Sunak could not 'sack' Dominic Raab, since ministers are not employed, the are appointed by the monarch. While they are paid for their services, there is no contract of employment. The monarch can remove ministers at will on the advice of the prime minister. I don't happen to like this system, but that as a point of fact, it is the case.

Likewise Forstater who went to an employment tribunal claiming that she was sacked for making her Tweets. Not true, as the hearing revealed, she not only was not sacked, but trans activists had nothing to do with her removal. The complaints came from people working in her office, one of whom is reported to have said that they all just became sick of her ramming her opinions down their throats. They complained and at the expiry of Forstater's contract decided not to renew. Therefore she lost her case.

Forstater had not been 'silenced by trans activists' but by her colleagues who'd just had enough of her. The company might well have taken a view on the amount of time she spent on Twitter each day instead of carrying out the work which they were paying for. There was also the point that this was a person who used the company name on social media accounts and was tweeting views that did not reflect the ethos of the company.

Later Forstater appealed and although one part of her appeal was successful, it mostly wasn't. Likewise the case brought by Allison Bailey, herself a barrister, and in his summing up the judge expressed his disgust for the omni-shambles of the case notes and the legal argument. Other than some a small amount of compensation for a relatively minor infringement of the rules by her employer, she too lost her case.

Yet these people want to claim they are successful, and then in contradiction to this bring out views from one other professional lawyer who attempts to pick apart the legal arguments with what appears to be obvious bias. AS demands that I take the word of this lawyer rather than the 17 judges of the Grand Chamber. Whatever the gender critical people think and whatever they try to argue, the convention laws are real and the final arbiter is the European Court of Human Rights. Their word is binding.

Gender critical people including Stock have been lobbying the United Nations directly. The UN women's groups do not agree with them and have expressed their views. Gender critical people celebrated when Glinner told the UN women's group to 'go fark themselves'. So in this case it is women who are trying to silence women. So I have to ask why are Stock et al lobbying the UN? I can only guess that they already know that if they apply for leave to seek effective remedy at the ECtHR, they already know they will fail.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to attack citizens, to 'out' them or to 'doxx' them or to use the right to protest to humiliate others who have a right to live in dignity under the law. Freedom of speech exists to enable citizens to speak truth to power or authority 'without frontiers' and without fear.

In the UK one of the abuses of the state is to promote a culture war while removing some of the freedoms that ensure that we can protest against an abusive government. Human rights are not safe in the hands of this government. It is arguable that the government have a mandate to be in office, and it's a powerful argument at that.

 

[multitool]

Let's not forget that Stock wasn't 'canceled'. She was backed by her employers but chose to upsticks to the University of Austin, and claim victimhood along the way. Just as the repulsive Minshull claimed "violent attack" when somebody poured a bit of tomato soup on her.

And here, in this thread, we have Aurora claiming that trans women aren't under any threat because 'only' 11 have been murdered in the period before people like her started doing their best to stoke fear and hatred against them.

It's such a a perverse view of danger and risk. AS entire argument is like calling for the complete exclusion of women from children's spaces because women commit more child abuse than men.

And the GC mob want to talk about 'truth'.

 

[monkers]

Let's not forget that Stock wasn't 'canceled'. She was backed by her employers but chose to upsticks to the University of Austin, and claim victimhood along the way. Just as the repulsive Minshull claimed "violent attack" when somebody poured a bit of tomato soup on her.

And here, in this thread, we have Aurora claiming that trans women aren't under any threat because 'only' 11 have been murdered in the period before people like her started doing their best to stoke fear and hatred against them.

It's such a a perverse view of danger and risk. AS entire argument is like calling for the complete exclusion of women from children's spaces because women commit more child abuse than men.

And the GC mob want to talk about 'truth'.

... while choosing what can be discussed and what can not (such as the law) and reserving the right to use the opinions of scientists and other evidence selectively, reserving the right to shift the goalposts and make them of any size; all the while claiming that two opposite things are the same thing for their purposes.

The problem, at least for me, is that anyone reading their stuff will be tempted to believe that all women are as hard of thinking as they are - I promise you we are not.

 

[theclaud]

If there were a transman demanding to play in what was currently an all male rugby league, should the males playing against them - tackling them and having to share showers - have any say in the matter? Lots of men wouldn't feel comfortable placing a heavy tackle on a female body, nor sharing showers with them. Should the men have no say in the matter? I think they should. I think they should have the right to say 'No'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Rowling, Stock, Forstater and others are no innocents. Under a veil of pretended truth and faux politeness they are attacking people's rights to live lawfully under convention rights.

I would suggest people read exactly what Rowling has said. Read accounts of what happened to Stock, read objective accounts of the Forstater ruling, then form an opinion.

Much has been made by that one activists who held up a placard saying 'decapitate TERFS'. They shouldn't have done so in my own opinion because they then stooped to the level of the person they were replying to. I'm not so bothered about 'TERF' it is a low level slur - but calling for decapitation is not acceptable, but let's be fair, the women who were there reading from Mein Kampf and holding up placards calling for a 'final solution' were using acceptable behaviour either ... and then to do deny that this has its roots in fascism.

No they weren't. One speaker at the event made an ill judge reference to the idea that men could be women as being like Goebels concept of the Big Lie.

She repeats the lies of Forstater - that she was sacked by her employer for using free speech to speak about women's rights. It's a lie.

Likewise Forstater who went to an employment tribunal claiming that she was sacked for making her Tweets. Not true, as the hearing revealed, she not only was not sacked, but trans activists had nothing to do with her removal. The complaints came from people working in her office, one of whom is reported to have said that they all just became sick of her ramming her opinions down their throats. They complained and at the expiry of Forstater's contract decided not to renew. Therefore she lost her case.

Failing to renew someone's contract without a good reason is sacking them in UK employment law. The initial complaints to her employer were made by company workers who did not work with her - they just didn't like her Twitter output. She won on appeal - so now gender critical beliefs are protected in employment just like religious beliefs are. Just like belief in gender identity is. That's sensible and how it should be.

Alison Bailey won the substantial part of her case. The bit she lost was the bit against Stonewall, ie. Yes, Stonewall were wrong, but the Chambers didn't have to follow Stonewall's advice.

Stock was subjected to a long campaign of intimidation by trans activists. Including masked men with smoke bombs outside her office. Her University did not give her appropriate support or take steps to stop it so she resigned. Read the news reports. It was horrendous bullying.

This constant twisting of the facts in these things helps noone. People can do their own research and see the facts for themselves.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Let's not forget that Stock wasn't 'canceled'. She was backed by her employers but chose to upsticks to the University of Austin, and claim victimhood along the way. Just as the repulsive Minshull claimed "violent attack" when somebody poured a bit of tomato soup on her.

Masked demonstrators stood outside her office. The police advised her not to go to work. She didn't upsticks for another job.

And here, in this thread, we have Aurora claiming that trans women aren't under any threat because 'only' 11 have been murdered in the period before people like her started doing their best to stoke fear and hatred against them.

You've spent this whole thread saying 'It's only a few men in women's prisons' and 'It's only a few men in women's sports'. Funny how you are less interested when the statistics show that the murder rate for trans people in the UK is actually very low. It's something we should all be glad about.

It's such a a perverse view of danger and risk. AS entire argument is like calling for the complete exclusion of women from children's spaces because women commit more child abuse than men.

This is the goalpost shifting you constantly accuse me of. If I say 'Trans people are a safe demographic in the UK', you say it's not just about safety. Yet dignity and privacy for women and girls counted for nothing earlier on in your posts.

Do women comit more child abuse than men statistically? More child murderers are women than are men? Do women comit more sexual abuse of children than men?

 

[monkers]

Rowling, Stock, Forstater and others are no innocents. Under a veil of pretended truth and faux politeness they are attacking people's rights to live lawfully under convention rights.

Aurora said ...I would suggest people read exactly what Rowling has said. Read accounts of what happened to Stock, read objective accounts of the Forstater ruling, then form an opinion.

I have said none of them are truthful. My fear is that the public will start tending to think that all women are devoid of critical thinking skills.

Here's couple of things you can apply your critical thinking skills to ...

I'm told on social media and /or through messages from people claiming to have scientific or philosophical knowledge that the 'trans phenomenon is making women a subset of their own species.' Our species is homo sapiens, literally 'wise man' or 'discerning man'. Justify the claim. Are all humans actually 'men', 'wise' or 'gay' as the words might suggest? Is this what they are clinging to?

I'm told everyday that there is no such thing as gender identity. Yet I have one. How can it be that gender identity is a 'new-fangled thing', when pronouns have been said to be the pronouns of gender since I don't know when.

A friend of mine got a rescue dog. He wanted a dog to replace the one he'd lost a year before, a black and white springer spaniel. The first dog was male and called Bruce. The second dog is female and he calls this dog Bruce two (or too I'm not sure). Women keep telling him that he can't do that because it's a boy dog's name, he should only use a girls dog's name. Shouldn't they be saying you can't give a bitch a dog's name? Thoughts?

People keep calling his pet a dog, but surely they shouldn't call her a dog but a bitch otherwise she'd become a subset of her own species / sex. Maybe we need to abolish all animal rights so we can just call bitches dogs? Consider.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The idea that transwomen are women makes biological women a subset of their sex, not of their species. It suggests there are two different types of women. One born male and one born female. This is linguistic and biological nonsense.

If someone thinks they have a gender identity. Good for them. Lots of people think they have a Christian soul. Good for them too. It doesn't mean either exist in objective reality. It doesn't mean either should be allowed to be the basis of legislation that affects people who don't subscribe to the idea of such supposedly innate things.

 

[monkers]

Much has been made by that one activists who held up a placard saying 'decapitate TERFS'. They shouldn't have done so in my own opinion because they then stooped to the level of the person they were replying to. I'm not so bothered about 'TERF' it is a low level slur - but calling for decapitation is not acceptable, but let's be fair, the women who were there reading from Mein Kampf and holding up placards calling for a 'final solution' were using acceptable behaviour either ... and then to do deny that this has its roots in fascism.

Aurora said ... No they weren't. One speaker at the event made an ill judge reference to the idea that men could be women as being like Goebels concept of the Big Lie.

That also happened ... different speaker, different day.

It's also not the case that trans activists are simply repeating 'the big lie' which in itself proves that the GC people are calling trans people fascists.

If you are at all interested in the truth, then trans people are not using fascism which is intent on the destruction of human rights, they are repeating what their conventions rights are and as given in the judgement in 2002. Doing so is not in any way fascist. The big lie is that it is.

 

[monkers]

The idea that transwomen are women makes biological women a subset of their sex, not of their species. It suggests there are two different types of women. One born male and one born female. This is linguistic and biological nonsense.

It isn't. So you applied no critical thinking applied at all, just resort to rhetoric. This what absolutism is and what authoritarianism is.

The law does not say that trans women have the same biology as other women, it says that they share a gender identity. That's it.

This is all that trans women say. Being as self-ID means identifying oneself is trans, then one can not be self-identifying as cis. It's not so hard.

Nobody says that you must have a gender identity. If what connects gender critical women is that they feel no sense of their gender identity, well that's fine, and you are free to say that. But if you say I can not have a gender identity because you have no sense of one, then you'll keep hearing from me.

Still with 72 gender identities to choose from, I'd hope that you'd find one to suit you.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's also not the case that trans activists are simply repeating 'the big lie' which in itself proves that the GC people are calling trans people fascists.

No. What I am calling out is your constant conflation of gender critical women with fascism and Nazism. It is hyperbolic and in bad taste to do do. It shows the absolute desperation of your arguments that the best you can do is cry Nazi every time someone doesn't fall into line or speaks against you.

There are no women trying to prevent trans people meeting together. They aren't masked up in black standing outside people's place of work.

The law does not say that trans women have the same biology as other women, it says that they share a gender identity. That's it. This is all that trans women say. Being as self-ID means identifying oneself is trans, then one can not be self-identifying as cis. It's not so hard.

It's self ID then, but just in law in certain countries. Which means that the biological categories haven't changed (how could they?), which means of course we all remain the sex we were born and there are no subsets of the sexes.

Nobody says that you must have a gender identity. If what connects gender critical women is that they feel no sense of their gender identity, well that's fine, and you are free to say that. But if you say I can not have a gender identity because you have no sense of one, then you'll keep hearing from me.

You can have whatever gender identity you choose. Any religion you like too. You can believe in astrology or chakkras. What is not so great is when you think any of those things should inform laws that have an affect on others. Your gender identity is a personal matter of faith.

Still with 72 gender identities to choose from, I'd hope that you'd find one to suit you.

Only 72 to choose from? Still, such a vast array makes 'gender identity' sound a bit nebulous, undefinable, and subjective. Almost like a personality, though of course there are 80 billion of those. Doesn't seem like a thing to be basing laws on.

 

[classic33]

No. What I am calling out is your constant conflation of gender critical women with fascism and Nazism. It is hyperbolic and in bad taste to do do. It shows the absolute desperation of your arguments that the best you can do is cry Nazi every time someone doesn't fall into line or speaks against you.

There are no women trying to prevent trans people meeting together. They aren't masked up in black standing outside people's place of work.

It's self ID then, but just in law in certain countries. Which means that the biological categories haven't changed (how could they?), which means of course we all remain the sex we were born and there are no subsets of the sexes.

You can have whatever gender identity you choose. Any religion you like too. You can believe in astrology or chakkras. What is not so great is when you think any of those things should inform laws that have an affect on others. Your gender identity is a personal matter of faith.

Only 72 to choose from? Still, such a vast array makes 'gender identity' sound a bit nebulous, undefinable, and subjective. Almost like a personality, though of course there are 80 billion of those. Doesn't seem like a thing to be basing laws on.

A similar argument was used for bringing in a law that made discrimination on the grounds of disability. There were just too many for any single act to cover each and every one.

Yet we got the DDA in 1995, so it can be done.


The idea of a soul isn't just a Christian belief. Many religions have had similar beliefs over the centuries. They may not have called it a soul, but the belief was there.

 

[classic33]

I think people should use the facilities appropriate to their sex. I didn't say transmen should use male toilets or changing rooms. I said that it would be up to men to decide if they were happy sharing their spaces with transmen. I can't consent to that on behalf of men. And you can't consent on behalf of women as to who they allow in their single sex spaces and services.

If there were a transman demanding to play in what was currently an all male rugby league, should the males playing against them - tackling them and having to share showers - have any say in the matter? Lots of men wouldn't feel comfortable placing a heavy tackle on a female body, nor sharing showers with them. Should the men have no say in the matter? I think they should. I think they should have the right to say 'No'. You apparently want to deny women the same right.

An edited post from a person who has moaned/complained about others editing posts. After they've said they can't consent on behalf of men. And who holds the view that we(men) should/would have no problems accepting trans men in men only sports and men only single sexed spaces.

No mention of the possibility that their reason for being there may just be the access to single sexed areas where there will often be children, boys in this case. That can only work one way in your mind, why is that.

I'll make the suggestion that you watch a short clip of the gentle womanly sport of Camogie. There's plenty to choose from.
Then go back to earlier in this thread and find a post that you can't understand why anyone would complain about a women playing on a men's team, in a men's sport.
As much as I hate it, I've used your language and theory in asking this. This has meant I can't call it a belief, as they are personal feelings according to you.

 

[AuroraSaab]

An edited post from a person who has moaned/complained about others editing posts. After they've said they can't consent on behalf of men. And who holds the view that we(men) should/would have no problems accepting trans men in men only sports and men only single sexed spaces.

It's you guys who are saying transmen shouldn't be in women's single sex spaces. I'm saying that women can't consent on your behalf to them being in men's exclusive spaces. A way forward would be to make Male facilities unisex or have a third unisex space. The Open category in sport does the same.

No mention of the possibility that their reason for being there may just be the access to single sexed areas where there will often be children, boys in this case. That can only work one way in your mind, why is that.

I don't understand what you are asking. Transmen are pretty much the same statistical risk as other women, ie massively lower than the risk men present.

I'll make the suggestion that you watch a short clip of the gentle womanly sport of Camogie. There's plenty to choose from.
Then go back to earlier in this thread and find a post that you can't understand why anyone would complain about a women playing on a men's team, in a men's sport.
As much as I hate it, I've used your language and theory in asking this. This has meant I can't call it a belief, as they are personal feelings according to you.

Women's sports can be rough and dangerous. They'll be more dangerous if we allow male bodied people to compete. They will also be less fair.

Funny that with the exception of a couple of people, eg Mack Beggs and Iszak Hennig, most transmen don't choose to switch to the male category to compete. Hennig has dropped down the ratings now they swim in the male section.

 

[monkers]

It's also not the case that trans activists are simply repeating 'the big lie' which in itself proves that the GC people are calling trans people fascists.

Aurora said.No. What I am calling out is your constant conflation of gender critical women with fascism and Nazism. It is hyperbolic and in bad taste to do do. It shows the absolute desperation of your arguments that the best you can do is cry Nazi every time someone doesn't fall into line or speaks against you.

Irony overload. It was you that just drew attention to the speaker at Newcastle quoting mein Kampf and saying that trans people are repeating a big lie. You did that, not me.