Judge Says Belief in Biological Sex Not Protected (1 Viewer)

[Houchens Head]

I was in bed with an ex of mine. She then said, "I have a secret and I should really confess to you."
I took a deep breath and then said, "Go on. What is it?"
She looked at me with sad eyes and said, "I used to be a hooker."
I breathed a sigh of relief and assured her, "That's okay, love. That sordid life's behind you now. No more paying a pimp."
"Er, I don't think you understand." she said. "My name was Kevin and I played for Saracens."

 

---

[fellatio_Martinez]

I see JK Rowling spoke out in support of this woman and has been pelted on social media by certain sections.

She is being absolutely slaughtered by the very same LGBT community that she championed for years.

They don't give a shit about opinion or conversation. It's either their way or you're cancelled..

 

[shmmeee]

That's all well and good until you forget which specific pronoun out of the hundreds available that someone is and they then get you fired because you "miss gendered" them.

And what if you're Christian or Muslim and your faith goes against such things and you do find it extremely difficult?

Or you have other deeply held beliefs. Belief in science. Belief in feminism (this woman’s case).

I’m not sure compelled speech is ever the answer to tolerance. It just breeds resentment. Civil rights movements in the past have worked on exposure and education rather than screaming bigot at someone.

 

[Marty]

Or you have other deeply held beliefs. Belief in science. Belief in feminism (this woman’s case).

I’m not sure compelled speech is ever the answer to tolerance. It just breeds resentment. Civil rights movements in the past have worked on exposure and education rather than screaming bigot at someone.

They don't seem to understand this, education is better then shaming someone into believing the same thing as you

 

[tisza]

They don't seem to understand this, education is better then shaming someone into believing the same thing as you

It's not shaming it's just a form of bullying. Shouting louder than someone else is just another form of bullying. These people end up with a Machiavellian attitude "that the ends justify the means". It's "i'm right so you must be wrong"

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

There was a vegan festival type thing at FarGo in the summer my sister attended (who isn't vegan but will substitute meat-free etc for a few meals a week). The different styles of people there were quite staggering.

One speaker was moderate and was talking about how it is a right to choose and even if someone is willing to swap occasionally it should be encouraged and welcomed and they may then do it more often. Another speaker was totally militant and was anyone who eats meat should be treated like a murderer.

 

[chiefdave]

One speaker was moderate and was talking about how it is a right to choose and even if someone is willing to swap occasionally it should be encouraged and welcomed and they may then do it more often. Another speaker was totally militant and was anyone who eats meat should be treated like a murderer.

I find that a completely counter-productive attitude. People just stop listening to you. You need to lead people down the path so they think they're making their own decision!

 

[shmmeee]

I find that a completely counter-productive attitude. People just stop listening to you. You need to lead people down the path so they think they're making their own decision!

The left as a whole are so bad at persuasion. Both socially and economically.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

She is being absolutely slaughtered by the very same LGBT community that she championed for years.

They don't give a shit about opinion or conversation. It's either their way or you're cancelled..

Sounds like the EU & GE threads

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

You're completely missing the point.

Threatening to rape someone is an actual crime. Calling someone a name isn't.

Pretty simple stuff.

I don't think I am. I am saying that is why there is no such thing as total free speech. Surely total free speech is being allowed to say anything freely.

As soon as you put caveats on what people can and cannot say, that's not total free speech then is it?

 

[Otis]

No that’s a direct threat of violence

But then you are cherry picking there.

So, if someone went up to a woman, who was with her 6 year old child and this person said to them 'in my opinion I think your child should be raped', that would not be a direct threat of violence. Should someone be allowed to say that and claim it is in the name of free speech?

 

[fellatio_Martinez]

I don't think I am. I am saying that is why there is no such thing as total free speech. Surely total free speech is being allowed to say anything freely.

As soon as you put caveats on what people can and cannot say, that's not total free speech then is it?

free speech
noun

1. the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

Threatening to rape someone isn't an opinion now is it?

 

[shmmeee]

But then you are cherry picking there.

So, if someone went up to a woman, who was with her 6 year old child and this person said to them 'in my opinion I think your child should be raped', that would not be a direct threat of violence. Should someone be allowed to say that and claim it is in the name of free speech?

Yes.

It’s a tough one, but ultimately no actual harm has been done. I’d hope there’s severe social punishment but I don’t think the police should be involved.

 

[Otis]

Yes

Exactly.

 

[shmmeee]

Exactly.

wait I edited.

 

[Otis]

free speech
noun

1. the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

Threatening to rape someone isn't an opinion now is it?

See opinion above.

My whole point is you cannot have total free speech I don't think.

 

[Otis]

People can word things in a way that comes across as an opinion rather than a threat.

 

[Otis]

Yes.

It’s a tough one, but ultimately no actual harm has been done. I’d hope there’s severe social punishment but I don’t think the police should be involved.

I know. That is what I am saying, Shmmeee. I am sure there are better examples. Just trying to make a point.

 

[fellatio_Martinez]

See opinion above.

My whole point is you cannot have total free speech I don't think.

Earlier you suggested that someone directly threatening to rape your daughter is under the umbrella of free speech which it is absolutely not. Free speech is about opinions and allowing freedom of expression not protecting criminal threats.

Your argument holds absolutely no water in the context of free speech.

 

[Otis]

Earlier you suggested that someone directly threatening to rape your daughter is under the umbrella of free speech which it is absolutely not. Free speech is about opinions and allowing freedom of expression not protecting criminal threats.

Your argument holds absolutely no water in the context of free speech.

Fair enough. It wasn't a good example. I am saying that things can worded on a way to be covered by free speech can't they.

 

[SBAndy]

Are you not essentially arguing about the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of expression?

 

[duffer]

That's all well and good until you forget which specific pronoun out of the hundreds available that someone is and they then get you fired because you "miss gendered" them.

And what if you're Christian or Muslim and your faith goes against such things and you do find it extremely difficult?

That's a bit of a nothing argument on all counts:

There aren't hundreds of pronouns to remember. In fact I'm assuming that in this case there's probably one or two - him/her, he/she, his/hers.

No one is being fired for making a simple mistake - it would appear they are behaving in a deliberately offensive way based on a personal belief, and presumably refusing to relent despite being requested to do so.

Christian or Muslim? Similar to my point above. Religion/personal belief does not trump the law in this or any other respect. I have no issue with Catholics (handy, given I'm married to one and my dad was one), Muslims, or anyone else - but that's how a secular society works.

 

[duffer]

The left as a whole are so bad at persuasion. Both socially and economically.

Maybe if a huge proportion of the main-stream media wasn't owned by a few very rich people, then they'd get a better chance to put their case.

 

[shmmeee]

Maybe if a huge proportion of the main-stream media wasn't owned by a few very rich people, then they'd get a better chance to put their case.

It’s not about the media, it’s interpersonal stuff online and IRL I’m talking about. I’ve seen friends get radicalised by right wing stuff online and they use very basic persuasion techniques that are very effective. First of which is you don’t come in telling people they’re wrong and shit.

 

[duffer]

It’s not about the media, it’s interpersonal stuff online and IRL I’m talking about. I’ve seen friends get radicalised by right wing stuff online and they use very basic persuasion techniques that are very effective. First of which is you don’t come in telling people they’re wrong and shit.

If you've already got the main-stream billionaire-owned media drip feeding a right-wing perspective whilst simultaneously smearing any and all left of centre politicians at every opportunity, and a Prime Minister talking about picaninnies and water-melon smiles, then it's not quite as far to the next step, is it?

Challenging obviously damaging policies, and pointing out that people aren't necessarily voting in their best interests, isn't the same as calling people stupid. In fact this whole left-wingers are horrible/unpatriotic/anti-Semitic bullies incapable of rational argument, is in itself a right-wing trope that doesn't really stand up to much analysis.

Imho the reason the left struggles to get its point over isn't anything to do with interpersonal stuff online - both sides have bullying cretins who do there arguments little merit, but you'll only tend to hear horror stories about one side, strangely enough.

The one thing I'd agree with is that the liberal left should try to avoid doing the right wing's work for them by endlessly briefing against each other, or even worse abstaining or voting to support the current shower like 30 labour MPs have just done.

 

[BodicoteSkyBlue]

I was in bed with an ex of mine. She then said, "I have a secret and I should really confess to you."
I took a deep breath and then said, "Go on. What is it?"
She looked at me with sad eyes and said, "I used to be a hooker."
I breathed a sigh of relief and assured her, "That's okay, love. That sordid life's behind you now. No more paying a pimp."
"Er, I don't think you understand." she said. "My name was Kevin and I played for Saracens."

Look on the bright side, at least Kev didn’t play for London Wasps. You gotta draw a line somewhere!

 

[Houchens Head]

I don't wish to raise the trans discussion again either, and I regret my earlier reply to this thread. And again, I think some of the views held by radical feminists in this debate are interesting and strongly valid (especially around trangenderism validating gender roles) - though to think that the promulgation of these views isn't firmly driven by misandry would be foolish and wrong.

This is yet again a case of looking behind the headlines for what was actually said. The judge drew upon journal and previous court evidence concerning the neurobiology of sex, which views genotypic sex as immutable but which views phenotypic sex as modifiable by developmental processes, which gives rise to intersex conditions as well as differences in gender. His argument was with the absolutist view that genotypic sex could not be mutated by development processes e.g. those arising in the womb, with particular recognition that there are persons born with anatomical markers (e.g. penis) not in keeping with their sex genes (XX).

The judgement was wider ranging than this, and was principally driven by the way Forastater used her absolutist view, it was felt, to discriminate against transgendered persons.

Here is the case and judgement: https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/06/Forstater-v-CGD-Judgement-2019.pdf

I lost the will to live after the first sentence.......zzzzzzzz

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Good man, better off reading The Sun - life's simpler and easier that way.

 

[Houchens Head]

Good man, better off reading The Sun - life's simpler and easier that way.

Haven't picked up a newspaper for over 20 years. Why bother when all the information I need is on SBT. (And I don't really class the Scum as a "newspaper". I wouldn't wipe my arse on it.)