Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

For any those who care for monkers here, I am letting you know that I am now very concerned for her health. I'm taking her to hospital.

 

[Deleted member 159]

My my all melting now

 

[icowden]

You have had sight of the original document received by my aunt.

No I haven't and nor have I requested such.

You have had sight of an image of a very similar document posted by AS, different only in the references to the dates. You have seen a reference made by JK Rowling on her Twitter account. Do you dispute these as material facts?

No. I can see that document on line and I have seen JK Rowlings twitter account.

I understand that your professional work is along the lines of a patient data manager for the NHS?

Then you understand incorrectly.

sovereign law prevents the publication of private data by those with a professional capacity. Also that doxxing is very bad form.

No-one has asked you to publish private data and no-one has suggested doxxing. A mail server is not private information.

Please can you kindly explain the reason for your contributions that could be argued as incitement to commit an offence?

Have you forgotten to take your medications today?

I feel quite certain that your ultimate employer, the NHS, would be concerned to see you acting in this manner.

I am not employed by the NHS and have not been employed by the NHS for over 12 years.

 

[AndyRM]

My my all melting now

Prick.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Prick.

That could be argued as incitement to commit an offence.

 

[AndyRM]

That could be argued as incitement to commit an offence.

It couldn't. But you carry on.

What did you make of the Daily Mail cover? Women chucking each other under the bus and trans hysteria at the same time. Ouch.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Shes got her heart in the right place

 

[monkers]

Sorry, but you didn't do this. You only copied the body of the text. Two people suggested that this had been taken from the internet and not from an email and asked you to post the header of the e-mail. You have avoided doing this (you could redact your personal e-mail address) which to some people suggests that you don't actually have an e-mail.

No I haven't and nor have I requested such.

We can agree that you are not the originator of the request. We can agree that you have accepted that you have sight of the copy of the text of the email in full.

It is my hope that I can find further agreement with you.

The dispute is to whether the letter/article was a matter of fact. To that end there is evidence the letter/article did exist.

This evidence was provided by @AuroraSaab who provided a link to it being posted on Medium the following day. Aside from the date reference and the original title, it appears to be the same article.

Monica had provided to the thread a reference by JKRowling to the article by title. Can please confirm that you had seen this?
Please explain the requirement for Monica to provide evidence that she received it by email. This is not a material fact concerning the origination and publication of the letter, which was a disputed statement made by Monica.

Notwithstanding events to the present, I can give assurance that the original article - 'This Is Not A Drill' was published to Medium on the day that Monica received it by email. I can also that Monica received the article via email.

I have an archive of the original article on Medium on file. I will copy it below. You will notice that the formatting from Medium is not the same as Monica's copy of her email.

There is no likelihood that Monica could have copied the text from the Medium article, reformatted it, added a title, altered the chronology, and posted it within one minute of the request was made by CXRAndy to post it.

From what I see in the thread, there is a deliberate attempt to hector Monica without basis. She had been truthful throughout - Kathleen Stock had indeed authored the article. The 'call to arms' description is perfectly apt.

This is not a drill​

I call upon UK academic philosophers and other academics to publicly demonstrate their disciplinary values.​

Kathleen Stock
Follow
Dec 18 · 3 min read
I am a professor of philosophy, employed at a British university in a Philosophy Department. Today, an UK employment tribunal judge ruled that the belief that biological sex is immutable, and that it is impossible to change one’s sex, is “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others”.
He writes: “I do not accept the Claimant’s contention that the Gender Recognition Act produces a mere legal fiction. It provides a right, based on the assessment of the various interrelated convention rights, for a person to transition, in certain circumstances, and thereafter to be treated for all purposes as the being of the sex to which they have transitioned.” Please note: all purposes. The judge has therefore apparently ruled that there are no contexts whatsoever in which it may be permissibly denied that a person with a gender recognition certificate is the sex they say they are. He also says, in his ruling, that there is “significant scientific evidence” that one’s biological sex can be changed — erroneously citing intersex people as of relevance to the facts of social transition.
This judge has concluded that nothing illegal happened when Maya Forstater lost employment at the Centre for Global Development for stating these beliefs. The precedent is now set, and a message sent to UK employees: don’t express the view that people can’t change sex. Your job will not be protected if you do.
As I say, I am a professor of philosophy and I share Maya’s belief. I think it is perfectly true. My grounds are summarised in this short article. I have also written about why this belief qualifies as a philosophical belief.
Over the past year and a half, I have encountered many academics and public figures who have scornfully dismissed my and others’ claims that women, in particular, are losing their legal capacity to discuss what they see as their distinctive nature and interests, in certain important political contexts. This is happening because of well-funded lobbying groups like Stonewall, and their incredible reach on institutions and employers (including Universities). Stonewall explicitly advise, through their training programmes and propaganda — disseminated via their near-ubiquitous Diversity Champions Scheme and their Top 100 Employers Index — that “transwoman are women” for all purposes, just as the employment tribunal judge has just stated. Stonewall explicitly yet tendentiously interpret the Equality Act as saying that organisations should allow transwomen into every single space where women are present, and into every single resource already specially devoted to women. And Stonewall explicitly advise that the pathway to becoming a transwoman — and so too, according to Stonewall, the pathway to becoming a woman, because “transwomen are women” — should not be gatekept by any medical professionals whatsoever, but should be achieved through self-identification and an adminstrative procedure.
Yet, philosophers and other academics continue to lecture me: “no-one is talking about sex — everyone knows sex and gender are distinct!”. Well, this employment tribunal judge apparently doesn’t know it. In fact, despite the brave efforts of people like Maya, there is huge public confusion about the relation between sex and gender in the UK, largely due to Stonewall’s lobbying, training, and propaganda. Women are losing not just their legal and social protections, but we are approaching a situation where women (and men) cannot even legally speak about this loss.
I therefore call upon the British Philosophical Association, all learned Philosophical societies in the UK, and all British academic philosophers working in UK departments, to stand up and say out loud — or better, write it down where members of the public can read it: people should be legally permitted to believe that biological sex is immutable and cannot be changed, without fear of losing their jobs. You are philosophers. This is your moment. If not now, then when?

• Transgender

https://archive.ph/o/Qvw16/https://...rsity-in-a-philosophy-department-a038ac89aad0


WRITTEN BY

Kathleen Stock​

Follow

Professor of Philosophy, University of Sussex.​

 

[monkers]

I understand that your professional work is along the lines of a patient data manager for the NHS?

Then you understand incorrectly.

I am not employed by the NHS. I sometimes do contractual work for them (and sometimes for private providers). They actually say that gender identity is a way to describe a person's innate sense of their own gender. That isn't *quite* the same thing as gender being innate.

My description of 'ultimate employer' seems appropriate enough.

Aside: your understanding of 'innate' is narrow.

 

[icowden]

Notwithstanding events to the present, I can give assurance that the original article - 'This Is Not A Drill' was published to Medium on the day that Monica received it by email. I can also that Monica received the article via email.

This seems very overblown. The original query was a response / pushback to comments about dishonesty. IIRC Aurora pushed back on whether @monkers genuinely had received an e-mail as she was not aware of the article ever being e-mailed. Both she and Andy requested that @monkers provide the header of the e-mail as proof that it is existed. That was it really.

However, If you are someone posting on behalf of @monkers because she is unwell, then the discussion isn't really worth bothering with and I hope I speak for all of us here in wishing her well and hoping she is back to challenge our ideas when she is feeling better. This is a discussion forum and we all have robust and differing opinions. That's kind of the point.

Merry Christmas!

 

[monkers]

Have you forgotten to take your medications today?

What medications are you saying that I should be taking? Perhaps you are saying that you have been abusing your position to access my medical records?

A mail server is not private information.

I can assure you that email addresses are protected data.

Are email addresses personal data?​

Yes, email addresses are personal data. According to data protection laws such as the GDPR and CCPA, email addresses are personally identifiable information

https://termly.io/faq/are-email-add...nal,personally identifiable information (PII).

 

[Deleted member 159]

This is getting really confusing,

Are we speaking to ghostly relatives whilst emergency Medical attention is being administered or was it a falsey alarm

 

[icowden]

Then you understand incorrectly.

Eh? You seem to be incoherent here...

My description of 'ultimate employer' seems appropriate enough.

Nope. Not an employer is the only appropriate description/

Aside: your understanding of 'innate' is narrow.

Please get some rest and enjoy your Christmas. I don't want to debate someone who is feeling unwell and should be taking some time out for themselves. I enjoy our discussions, but this isn't the right time it would seem.

 

[icowden]

What medications are you saying that I should be taking? Perhaps you are saying that you have been abusing your position to access my medical records?

No. That was a joke.

I can assure you that email addresses are protected data.

Which is why I suggested redacting them.

 

[newfhouse]

I hope I speak for all of us here in wishing her well and hoping she is back to challenge our ideas when she is feeling better.

This.