Gender again. Sorry!

[Rusty Nails]

I'm not and I wasn't.

The similarity, such as it is, is that fear, whether justifiable or not, can be exploited by people that have none of our interests at heart. The reaction to my pointing that out indicates to me that it is a technique that often works even with thoughtful people.

Or, conversely, it's another type of "thin end of wedge" argument designed to over-emphasise the negatives as in "this Tory government has echoes of the rise of the Nazi party in Germany pre WW2".

The "exploitation of fear" argument can also be used to shut down legitimate concerns of people who may fear, in this particular debate,
equivalence to racism, however faint the echoes.

I can fully understand the concerns of women being sensitive about some medical treatments/examinations being carried out by men, and vice versa, due either to fear, conditioning, the need for empathy, or just plain embarrassment. All those are important, valid and can be justified, and with time probably overcome.

I probably felt some of those concerns when I was younger but these days I have become more de-sensitised, as opposed to less prejudiced, and don't worry whether the finger up my backside, or the hand putting the camera tube up my urethra, is male or female as long as they have gloved and KY'd up and know their job.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You are continuing with your 'compelled' theme. Nobody can stop you saying stuff, but if you do there can be consequences. I'm just advising you that the things you say are unlawful.

You might choose to say that you are not transphobic. Some people might take that to mean that you are not. Others may be tempted to this this going down the 'I'm not a racist but ...' line.

In your case I am alleging nothing, the jury is out as they say, but the repeated use of transphobic language does little to persuade that you are not.

But you have choices, and people may judge you on it - that's one consequence.

Yes, but people judging me on it is not what you said. They might similarly judge me on my choice of shoes. You said it was illegal.

You've said not using preferred pronouns is breaking the law.

The law obliges us to behaviour in certain ways. If you choose to break the law, you choose to live with the consequences.

It isn't. This constant misrepresenting of the current law to make people think the changes you dream of are already in place is very disingenuous.

This is what the phrases 'Stonewall Law' and 'ahead of the law' means. Telling the public and employers that these changes are already legal when they aren't. Not using the exemptions of the Equality Act so that you can pretend the exemptions never existed. It's been a well know ploy of transactivism for years.

 

[newfhouse]

Or, conversely, it's another type of "thin end of wedge" argument designed to over-emphasise the negatives as in "this Tory government has echoes of the rise of the Nazi party in Germany pre WW2".

The "exploitation of fear" argument can also be used to shut down legitimate concerns of people who may fear, in this particular debate,
equivalence to racism, however faint the echoes.

I can fully understand the concerns of women being sensitive about some medical treatments/examinations being carried out by men, and vice versa, due either to fear, conditioning, the need for empathy, or just plain embarrassment. All those are important, valid and can be justified, and with time probably overcome.

I probably felt some of those concerns when I was younger but these days I have become more de-sensitised, as opposed to less prejudiced, and don't worry whether the finger up my backside, or the hand putting the camera tube up my urethra, is male or female as long as they have gloved and KY'd up and know their job.

I agree with most but not all of that. Where we differ is that the current Tories do indeed echo 1930s Germany. Denying people the right to strike, to peacefully demonstrate, to contemplate demonstrating, forcibly rendering refugees to other countries, demonizing teachers, lawyers, the different, and the poor... need I go on?

 

[monkers]

Yes, but people judging me on it is not what you said. They might similarly judge me on my choice of shoes. You said it was illegal.

You've said not using preferred pronouns is breaking the law.

The shoe analogy doesn't work, though people may judge your taste in shoes on your shoes, shoes are not ordinarily judged to be unlawful by their appearance alone; though it can be reasonably argued that some shoes are inadequate for respecting public safety, for example driving in six inch heels. The defence of saying 'I manage to do that everyday without causing harm' works up until the day you don't manage it.

I didn't say 'illegal', I said unlawful. The two things are quite different.

I said that not repeatedly not using a person's personal pronouns, can be unlawful. When you write 'tranwoman' instead of trans woman, and you write that 'they are all male', and then refuse to use their preferred pronouns, then there exists a case of failing to respect an individual or a group of people. Taken collectively, this lends strong evidence to legal opinion that your position is unlawful.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I agree with most but not all of that. Where we differ is that the current Tories do indeed echo 1930s Germany. Denying people the right to strike, to peacefully demonstrate, to contemplate demonstrating, forcibly rendering refugees to other countries, demonizing teachers, lawyers, the different, and the poor... need I go on?

Surprise, surprise. Right wing parties have policies that faintly echo those of much more extreme right wing parties in the past. I am sure that many Tories said the same about Labour and the Soviet Communists of the past.

It is the strength of those echoes that is important.

I am not a great believer in homeopathic medicines.

 

[monkers]

The law obliges us to behaviour in certain ways. If you choose to break the law, you choose to live with the consequences.

''It isn't. This constant misrepresenting of the current law to make people think the changes you dream of are already in place is very disingenuous.

This is what the phrases 'Stonewall Law' and 'ahead of the law' means. Telling the public and employers that these changes are already legal when they aren't. Not using the exemptions of the Equality Act so that you can pretend the exemptions never existed. It's been a well know ploy of transactivism for years.''


We disagree. You disagree with the Equality Act. That is your right, and if you choose to say that instead, I would fully support your right.

It isn't necessary to offend the dignity of an already very maginalised group in order for you to say that you disagree with the Equality Act.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I didn't say 'illegal', I said unlawful. The two things are quite different.

I said that not repeatedly not using a person's personal pronouns, can be unlawful. When you write 'tranwoman' instead of trans woman, and you write that 'they are all male', and then refuse to use their preferred pronouns, then there exists a case of failing to respect an individual or a group of people. Taken collectively, this lends strong evidence to legal opinion that your position is unlawful.

Which specific law has been broken in those examples?

Refusing to respect someone's gender identity is not unlawful as far as I am aware. I would respect the right of religious people to believe what they believe but it's not unlawful to say I don't believe in the idea of a soul.

I'm pretty certain putting 'transwoman' not 'trans woman' isn't unlawful.

Perhaps we'll leave this detour for now. You've backed yourself into a corner on this one.

Edit: I disagree with yours and Stonewall's interpretation of the Equality Act which they have been allowed to pedal unchecked for a decade.

 

[winjim]

Within these walls we (mostly) have a group of open minded, educated and reasonably well informed people struggling to get their heads around something which is clearly very complex and highly emotive to those that it impacts. I am disappointed at the petty nastiness shown toward people trying to debate in good faith and challenging their own beliefs. It should come as no surprise that several have dropped-out of this thread and contemplating leaving NACA as a result of the tone exhibited here.

Even Sam's got bored and given up.

 

[monkers]

Which specific law has been broken in those examples?

Refusing to respect someone's gender identity is not unlawful as far as I am aware. I would respect the right of religious people to believe what they believe but it's not unlawful to say I don't believe in the idea of a soul.

I'm pretty certain putting 'transwoman' not 'trans woman' isn't unlawful.

Perhaps we'll leave this detour for now. You've backed yourself into a corner on this one.

Edit: I disagree with yours and Stonewall's interpretation of the Equality Act which they have been allowed to pedal unchecked for a decade.

I've already covered this. It serves no purpose for me to keep repeating it and you to keep ignoring it.

Comparing gender identity with religious belief is obviously a bogus argument. You are undermining the existence of gender identity by pretending to yourself that it is no more than a belief system, as in, and to paraphrase ' poor deluded little things, it's all in their heads'.

When men say similar things about women, women rightly object, yet here you are.

Religious belief is a belief system. The Equality Act treats every religious belief as equal, along with non-belief. All protected.

Gender identity is not a belief system, it is self-knowledge. Gender identity is intrinsic to our nature, religious belief is extrinsic, without being taught it does not exist.

I didn't say the correct grammatical form of trans woman is unlawful. Let's not pretend that I did.

Stonewall's interpretation of the Equality Act is the one accepted by the Select Committee as the correct one. Theresa May agreed with them.

At the Select Committee Caroline Dinenage MP stated that the committee could have had the benefit of a test case. Later there was a test case, the judge confirmed that the interpretation accepted that by the Select Committee reflected what parliament intended.

In the judiciary, that is the standard, interpretation of written law; any failure arising leads to establishing what 'parliament intended', when that fails, advice can be sought from the relevant minister.

This twisting of people's words, the law and substitution with what you would like are not a reasonable basis to proceed.

From what you write you disagree with the Equality Act. That's fine, you can say that with no quarrel from me, and I doubt from anyone else.

Please do look up the difference between 'illegal' and 'unlawful'. That would be appreciated as they are not synonyms.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Within these walls we (mostly) have a group of open minded, educated and reasonably well informed people struggling to get their heads around something which is clearly very complex and highly emotive to those that it impacts. I am disappointed at the petty nastiness shown toward people trying to debate in good faith and challenging their own beliefs. It should come as no surprise that several have dropped-out of this thread and contemplating leaving NACA as a result of the tone exhibited here.

As @monkers posted earlier in this thread:

People shouting at each other with absolutist views with both sides determined to win the argument rather than reach any accommodation through discussion. Eventually one side becomes worn down by the repetitive never ending argument and just says anything to annoy the opponent.

It has for some reached the stage of trying to catch people out, to score points in the 'debate' and to try to attribute malign motives rather than to try and understand the views of those holding those different views, or to try to change those views.

This is not the Oxford Debating Society or even a sixth form version where motions are voted on and winners declared but an online forum, more like the bar in the Dog and Duck but without the beer, where people come to explain their viewpoints, listen to those of others, possibly to learn or even to influence others.

 

[monkers]

As @monkers posted earlier in this thread:


It has for some reached the stage of trying to catch people out, to score points in the 'debate' and to try to attribute malign motives rather than to try and understand the views of those holding those different views, or to try to change those views.

This is not the Oxford Debating Society or even a sixth form version where motions are voted on and winners declared but an online forum, more like the bar in the Dog and Duck but without the beer, where people come to explainThan their viewpoints, listen to those of others, possibly to learn or even to influence others.

Thank you. Policing honesty is tiring work. I shall be taking a break before very long.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Thank you. Policing honesty is tiring work. I shall be taking a break before very long.

Lightweight

Nil desperandum. Illegitimi non carborundum.

 

[monkers]

Which specific law has been broken in those examples?

Refusing to respect someone's gender identity is not unlawful as far as I am aware. I would respect the right of religious people to believe what they believe but it's not unlawful to say I don't believe in the idea of a soul.

I'm pretty certain putting 'transwoman' not 'trans woman' isn't unlawful.

Perhaps we'll leave this detour for now. You've backed yourself into a corner on this one.

Edit: I disagree with yours and Stonewall's interpretation of the Equality Act which they have been allowed to pedal unchecked for a decade.

Here's a copy of the relevant part of the report from a court decision as reported by Legal Feminist.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/07/27/misgendering-and-harassment/

• The EAT isn’t taking a position on “the transgender debate”.
• The judgment doesn’t mean anyone can “misgender” trans persons with impunity.
• It doesn’t mean trans persons aren’t protected from harassment and discrimination under the EqA.
• It doesn’t mean employers and service providers won’t be able to provide a safe environment for trans persons.

 

[AuroraSaab]

That judgement was about the Forstater case. The result of which was that gender critical beliefs are not a sackable offence. Maya Forstater won that case for unfair dismissal.

What you can't do, obviously, is harass colleagues by deliberately dead naming them or using their old pronouns - because it's quite rightly against most companies terms of employment to harass people.

She wasn't sacked for saying anything unlawful. There were no UK laws broken.

I certainly wish you were prepared to be more honest.

 

[multitool]

As @monkers posted earlier in this thread:


It has for some reached the stage of trying to catch people out, to score points in the 'debate' and to try to attribute malign motives rather than to try and understand the views of those holding those different views, or to try to change those views.

This is not the Oxford Debating Society or even a sixth form version where motions are voted on and winners declared but an online forum, more like the bar in the Dog and Duck but without the beer, where people come to explain their viewpoints, listen to those of others, possibly to learn or even to influence others.

I'm sure your attempt to police this debate is well-intentioned, but, should you read the thread in its entirety you will see it is a thread of 3 parts. There is, pretty much, only one person who has been present throughout.

There is a reason why so many have walked. Dishonest, low-grade debating tactics gleaned from zealot twitter-feeds and substacks are likely to rile, and they have.