spen666
Über Member
The OP mentioned no person in their post.
Some people seek to find reasons to be offended
Gender poll - new and improved
- Thread starter Ianonabike
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The OP mentioned no person in their post.
Some people seek to find reasons to be offended
LCpl Boiled Egg
Regular
There's literally an option with "Monkers" in it.
OP
OP
Ianonabike
Active Member
There's also an option with "AuroraSaab". Because those seem to be the opposite ends of the debate, and both post more often than anyone else on that topic.
Psamathe
Guru
And there is still a thread discussing those issues available for people to add to, respond on, etc.
OP
OP
Ianonabike
Active Member
As I acknowledged in the OP of my poll v.1
icowden
Shaman
But that's reasonable given that AuroraSaab seems to be one of the very few biological women on this site, and Monkers (N) is the only transwoman that I am aware of on this site.
We had actually had some better quality discussion on the gender thread recently.
OP
OP
Ianonabike
Active Member
It was reasonable, I agree!
View: https://youtu.be/D9qOUDHgzpM
I see the swear filter doesn't like the word self-gratification artist.
Well, it did remind me why I give Wanker Boyle a miss.
View: https://youtu.be/D9qOUDHgzpM
I see the swear filter doesn't like the word self-gratification artist.
Last edited:
AndyRM
Elder Goth
CXRAndy
Shaman
cookiemonster
Guru
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
CXRAndy
Shaman
biological facts
cookiemonster
Guru
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
This was a reaction to the ENTIRE thread. Not any individual post.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
You mentioned nuance in one of your polls. And had you been engaged with the gender thread you'd know that N and Aurora are outliers, while others are trying to have a reasonable discussion about gender.
monkers
Shaman
Your statement is not in dispute or a matter of debate. This is only a position of prejudice. Advocacy for the removal of human rights of one group is a form of facism. If this is what you advocate, then the dictionary provides the necessary words to describe these positions.
Your persistence with this is demonstration of repeated and ongoing prejudice against a group of people, and your repeated call for removal of their rights positions you within a defined group.
I persist with points of law, because I am both a trans woman and a lawyer. I have the long-term lived experience of being both. You persist with so-called ''talking points''.
On the other hand you are neither a trans person or a lawyer, and have the life experiences of neither. However being an adult male makes you feel that you are the one with the capacity for the decision. The women be they cis women or trans women must listen to you. This is the very arrogance of men that first gave rise to women's rise from their oppression that Aurora speaks about.
This is not a battle between cis women and trans women. It is a contest of legal rights about trans people made out by cisgender people, both male and female. The very definition of an oppression of a minority group by a majority. However those who claim to be expressing themselves as a majority, or not necessarily a majority of the population. That is why they campaign to persuade.
On the legal points, every member state of the Council of Europe has signed an agreement of solidarity to cooperate together - solidarity in human rights. This bloc comprises of 44 wholly recognised member states plus Vatican City (it's complicated, don't ask). Together they cooperate to maintain peace within the member states. The original manuscripts were largely produced by UK academics and lawyers.
The European Court of Human Rights exists to hear cases of dispute and provide resolution that extends across all member states. A case brought and won by one individual in one member state becomes effective across all the others. This is the system designed by the UK, simply because the UK does not wish to become a participant in world war beginning in Europe, as the previous two had.
On the question of gender identity, this is a human rights issue on which the Council of Europe has purview, and with that follows the legal competence to decide cases for resolution on all human rights issues.
Christine Goodwin took a case for effective remedy for an abuse of the state to the UK Supreme Court. She was not successful. This made an effective pathway for her to appeal to the ECtHR. The case was heard, and she won. She did not merely win for herself, but for everybody with that shared characteristic, and not just within all political and geographical boundaries of the UK, but across all 44 wholly and 1 holy member states of the Council of Europe. At that time Russia was a member state of the Council of Europe, the case of Goodwin also applied there.
As a brief aside, Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe in 2023 due to its invasion of Ukraine that occurred the day after Ukraine became an official candidate for accession to the EU.
Back to Goodwin, the ECtHR was sent a directive to comply with European law on the question of gender identity. Thus the UK Supreme Court were overruled and found to be in breach of international law. In response the UK government placed a Bill - the Gender Recognition Act before parliament. That Bill was scrutinised at great length by parliament before being passed into an Act - the Gender Recognition Act.
Within that Act is a 'deeming clause' whereby parliament agreed that for the purposes of being compliant with international law, it was necessary for the state to recognise people who wish to continue with their life in the acquired gender, and that their sex will be recognised as an acquired characteristic. This was necessary to make UK law recognise trans people in the sexual identity of acquired sex for the purpose of marriage. Since the GRA, trans people, that is to say, those trans men and trans women with a gender recognition certificate became legally the sex and gender of the acquired sex. Note, they did not acquire state recognition of gender identity, since people have self-determination, and the state has no legal right or competence to interfere with that. Accordingly, the state must recognise a person's gender identity, and respect that by affording them the accompanying rights to life.
You understand Newton's Third Law, yes? To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Human rights are a carefully balanced act. They act on behalf of every individual, like Christine Goodwin, like me, like you, like any one of us.
Just as people are arguing constantly about their ''protected philosophical belief'', there are people with the equal and opposite ''protected philosophical belief''. This in effect is a right to a recognition to hold a belief, also there is a right to express it. The right to hold a belief is an absolute, the right to state it is a qualified right. Conduct that is otherwise tantamount to not a merely a belief but a conduct that is separately considered under law. Hence the law has systems of examining conduct and finding against individuals, groups of people, and corporate bodies that fail to respect the rights of individuals and trespass against them.
There are those who disagree with international law, and UK domestic law. They remain free to hold a belief that the law is not good law, however they are not free to operate outside its restraints. They can explain within the limits of the law why they believe that the sovereign law is not good law - lawyers do so all the time, both in and out of court.
Hence incitement can not be considered an absolute right within the qualified right to freedom of expression. According to many lawyers, Linehan did break the law when he wrote to incite violence against trans women. Charges were not brought. This is due to a tension that exists, European law is law that applies across Council of Europe member states. Linehan lives in the USA where European law has no effect. Likewise USA law has not effect in the UK unless wrongdoing such as homocide are similarly protected.
Absolute free speech has harsher consequences and penalties than qualified speech. In the USA so-called absolute free speech is countered by the right to bear arms. In the UK we have the right to bare arms - they are not only different in spelling.
Footnote; none of the above was generated by or assisted by any form of AI. Now back to my house hunting.
Last edited:
