OV9

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:01 pm The courts weren’t ruling on what she actually said afaik just on whether the way she was treated was a violation of her rights.

They must have been by virtue though. If she states a belief that is based upon fact, where does the offence lie for which she is entitled to be sacked?

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:58 pm I think over the next couple of decades the way that sex and gender is viewed is going to change drastically.

As lgbt+ representation continues to increase the rules that we’re forced to try and work with will become less and less relevant.

maybe in every day conversing (where tbh Today I don’t think Someone’s gender even needs to be referred to really), but not in a legal standing or anything like sport.

Rich B wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:12 pm where tbh Today I don’t think Someone’s gender even needs to be referred to really

It’s easy to say that when you’re the default.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:05 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:01 pm The courts weren’t ruling on what she actually said afaik just on whether the way she was treated was a violation of her rights.

They must have been by virtue though. If she states a belief that is based upon fact, where does the offence lie for which she is entitled to be sacked?

Ok so basically terfs (or gender critical feminists as they like to be called) think that if you were born a male then that’s what you are and trans women are just men trying to invade women’s spaces. I’d need to read up on this case in particular a bit more to find out what the courts said but she was trying to say that her saying this was protected in some way and the court disagreed.

The court basically said that being a prick to trans people on a subject they're obviously rather sensitive about isn't something you should expect to get away with in polite society.

He concluded: “If a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), that person is legally a woman. That is not something Ms Forstater is entitled to ignore. Ms Forstater’s position is that even if a trans woman has a GRC, she cannot honestly describe herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

“Even paying due regard to the qualified right to freedom of expression, people cannot expect to be protected if their core belief involves violating others’ dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them.”

Basically, as trans (and other LGBTQetc) have historically been systematically abused, ignored, dehumanised and treated like shit and have only in the last couple of decades been deemed 'acceptable' by most in society (much alike homosexuality up until the 70s and even later), the judge concluded that the protection of their rights of identity are more important than the rights of someone to state that they are Unpersons etc without recourse, as that would be the result of a judgement the other way.

Looking at this thread, I can't imagine why that would be

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:20 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:05 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:01 pm The courts weren’t ruling on what she actually said afaik just on whether the way she was treated was a violation of her rights.

They must have been by virtue though. If she states a belief that is based upon fact, where does the offence lie for which she is entitled to be sacked?

Ok so basically terfs (or gender critical feminists as they like to be called) think that if you were born a male then that’s what you are and trans women are just men trying to invade women’s spaces. I’d need to read up on this case in particular a bit more to find out what the courts said but she was trying to say that her saying this was protected in some way and the court disagreed.

That seems fair enough if that's the case. If you take Rowlings tweet and the responses the issue seems to be some conflation of sex and gender though. Albeit her #tags might suggest Rowling fully supports this Maya, which clearly blurs the lines a little.

I was reading an article a little while ago where someone had studied the language used in reporting on trans people and it was very similar to the language that used to be used for gay people.

They’re predators, deviants, mentally unstable criminals.

The anti trans movement is just the latest battle in something that’s been going on since homosexuality was criminalised one the first place.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:30 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:20 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:05 pm

They must have been by virtue though. If she states a belief that is based upon fact, where does the offence lie for which she is entitled to be sacked?

Ok so basically terfs (or gender critical feminists as they like to be called) think that if you were born a male then that’s what you are and trans women are just men trying to invade women’s spaces. I’d need to read up on this case in particular a bit more to find out what the courts said but she was trying to say that her saying this was protected in some way and the court disagreed.

That seems fair enough if that's the case. If you take Rowlings tweet and the responses the issue seems to be some conflation of sex and gender though. Albeit her #tags might suggest Rowling fully supports this Maya, which clearly blurs the lines a little.

Like I say it’s not the first time she’s done something transphobic on twitter and if you consider that she thought it was fine to invent a race of hook nosed goblins to run the banks in her kids book series she might just be a shitty person .

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan by any stretch - I think she's a dick.

But there surely has to be an agreed distinction between sex and gender? Even the multiple press reports conflate the two, even though the Judge's findings make no reference to sex, just gender.

Sex literally only refers to the genitals you’re born with, gender is how your personal identity relates to being male or female.

The interchangeability of the terms is because sex has been used to describe both in the past.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:16 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:12 pm where tbh Today I don’t think Someone’s gender even needs to be referred to really

It’s easy to say that when you’re the default.

Did you just assume my gender?

Rich B wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:00 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:16 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:12 pm where tbh Today I don’t think Someone’s gender even needs to be referred to really

It’s easy to say that when you’re the default.

Did you just assume my gender?

Oh I’m sorry, if you’re bi I apologise.

I’d have thought you’d be bit more aware of these issues though tbh.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:01 pm

Rich B wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:00 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:16 pm

It’s easy to say that when you’re the default.

Did you just assume my gender?

Oh I’m sorry, if you’re bi I apologise.

I’d have thought you’d be bit more aware of these issues though tbh.

are you thinking for me too? Maybe you should mind your own business Zed.

Oh we’re having a laugh and learning aren’t we Rich.

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:39 pm It’s almost unbelievable that a group of white, middle-aged, right-leaning, straight cis men have failed to resolve this debate.

I'm a middle-aged, male homo sapien.

Other than that you can stick your labels and your divisive identity politics up your fucking arse.

There is no debate to be resolved.

evostick wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:35 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:39 pm It’s almost unbelievable that a group of white, middle-aged, right-leaning, straight cis men have failed to resolve this debate.

I'm a middle-aged, male homo sapien.

Other than that you can stick your labels and your divisive identity politics up your fucking arse.

There is no debate to be resolved.

Clearly

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:03 pm Oh we’re having a laugh and learning aren’t we Rich.

Trying, but you keep on telling me what I am and what I’m thinking. I thought the whole point was that was not the appropriate thing to do to people.

No you’re right I shouldn’t assume like that and I guess if you’re not to up on this stuff you wouldn’t know that “did you just assume my gender?” is a hilarious line that bigots pull out when they’re being dismissive of lgbt+ people.

Sorry Rich, you do you.

It's kind of ironic that the title of this thread is literally what most LGBTQ+ people - of whom I count a solid half dozen (who are open about it, because being open about it often = abuse) as good friends - would think of this thread.

You know, the definition of a absolute fucking toilet.

I’ve been sharing the highlights in a group chat with some other opinionated queer types and they agree it’s a train wreck.

Been some good entertainment though .