J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

This political music is being forced down our throats.

We have no means of turning it off.

Course you can, stop creating accounts on here, cancel your social media and go read a nice book.

Pretty simple really.

Probably for the best, because it sounds like you are having a physical reaction to something that will not tangibly effect you in the slightest.

Will I Am Not

Boggles wrote: »

I'm sick to death of Listening to White Christmas on the radio.

So do you know what I do? I turn if off.

Still doesn't take from the ruling that no indirect sexism took place.

How could it have?

That’s all well and good until Bing Crosby knocks on your door, forces himself in, whips out a guitar and gives you the acoustic version.

Raconteuse

"You don't have to listen" could be said about anything.

Now it's good advice much of the time but the judgment that led to this is staggering.

Saying a trans woman (or even a man who considers himself female) is not a biological woman and this causing offence is absolutely through the looking glass.

Boggles

Will I Am Not wrote: »

That’s all well and good until Bing Crosby knocks on your door, forces himself in, whips out a guitar and gives you the acoustic version.

But sure if he were that way inclined he would do it anyway.

Also I'm pretty sure it is acoustic.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

But sure if he were that way inclined he would do it anyway.

Also I'm pretty sure it is acoustic.

Do you believe that an able-bodied person who self-identifies as "disabled", and believes they were born into the wrong body, should have that disablement realised -- whether it's blindness, having limbs chopped off etc.

This may sound insane, but there are people who believe this.

Do you believe that we should accept them as disabled people and try to make that mental image a reality?

No dodge or dither; a straight answer please.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We've had enough.

What’s this ‘we’ business? You don’t speak for anyone but yourself, and you certainly don’t speak for me.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you believe that an able-bodied person who self-identifies as "disabled", and believes they were born into the wrong body, should have that disablement realised -- whether it's blindness, having limbs chopped off etc.

This may sound insane, but there are people who believe this.

Do you believe that we should accept them as disabled people and try to make that mental image a reality?

No dodge or dither; a straight answer please.

Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder not too long ago too, it may sound insane, but there are still people who believe this.

That’s basically the equivalent of what you’re saying there. Everyone in society deserves to be treated equally in law. If the laws needed to be changed so that people couldn’t be discriminated against in law, then I would support that. I don’t have to agree with their ideology*, but they are entitled to be treated equally in law as anyone else.


*I sometimes wonder how it never occurred to people at the time that aligning themselves under the political umbrella of LGBT as though they aren’t distinct from each other was never going to end well. As soon as one social group gained social acceptance they would do the same thing as the groups they rallied against - pull the ladder up after themselves. It’s simply in some people’s nature, especially politically motivated types.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What’s this ‘we’ business? You don’t speak for anyone but yourself, and you certainly don’t speak for me.

Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder not too long ago too, it may sound insane, but there are still people who believe this.

You've completely dodged my question, as expected. :rolleyes:

Want to directly answer it now!?

biko

Sisters are doing it to themselves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drGx7JkFSp4

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You've completely dodged my question, as expected. :rolleyes:

Want to directly answer it now!?

I didn’t dodge your question. You don’t have to accept anything you don’t want to, you can’t be compelled to either. You can relax now.

I also went further and said that if anyone were being discriminated against in law, then I would support the laws being changed so that all people were regarded equally in law and could pursue legal remedies if they felt they were being discriminated against.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t dodge your question. You don’t have to accept anything you don’t want to, you can’t be compelled to either. You can relax now.

You are skating around the question, clutching at progressiveness as a means of escape.

This was the question:

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you believe that an able-bodied person who self-identifies as "disabled", and believes they were born into the wrong body, should have that disablement realised -- whether it's blindness, having limbs chopped off etc.

Do you believe that we should accept them as disabled people and try to make that mental image a reality?

It's a straightforward yes or no answer.

Which is it!?

beejee

"you are whatever you believe you are"

I must say, the level of ignorance needed to believe in such infantalistic things is occasionally astounding to me.

General education has to have a share in the blame. If people had even the weakest grasp of deductive logic they d see this for the buffoonery it is.

This, along with a whole lot more of related craziness is just, well, crazy

Amazing!

Silentcorner

beejee wrote: »

"you are whatever you believe you are"

I must say, the level of ignorance needed to believe in such infantalistic things is occasionally astounding to me.

General education has to have a share in the blame. If people had even the weakest grasp of deductive logic they d see this for the buffoonery it is.

This, along with a whole lot more of related craziness is just, well, crazy

Amazing!

Who knew that a society that tells itself we can all be what we want to be and do what we want to do would end up creating a gender confused, obese, anxiety ridden generation with a poor work ethic and serious self image and self worth issues...the lashback is coming!

beejee

Silentcorner wrote: »

Who knew that a society that tells itself we can all be what we want to be and do what we want to do would end up creating a gender confused, obese, anxiety ridden generation with a poor work ethic and serious self image and self worth issues...the lashback is coming!

It's not the worst message in itself, taken at an innocent level. A motivation along the lines of "I want to be an astronaut when I grow up!" sure, give it your best shot!

But it changed into a perversion with such rapidity that the road runner was put to shame. Meep eep!

Now, it's "I want to be an Arctic Fox made of ice cream, and motherfookahs, not only will you play along, but I'll insist that you teach your children in school about how sensible my delusions are!"

Like, fook everything, man. It drains the soul.

Raconteuse

I think it can be traced back to the hippy counter culture. You're amazing and unique and you can be anything. This kinda sh1t is damaging when the person grows up and learns it's bullsh1t. Now as said, it started off as well meaning - believe in yourself, that's important for children's confidence. But then instead of "and work hard and have a plan B" it became "you're amazing and special and unique, and if you believe it will come true."

Psychiatry in the past too - it's your parents' fault etc (obviously there are times that's true but not appropriate for everything, particularly when the patient has to work to improve things for themselves also) - that's being addressed now with CBT though.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are skating around the question, clutching at progressiveness as a means of escape.

This was the question:

It's a straightforward yes or no answer.

Which is it!?

Ohh you’re so barking up the wrong tree there :pac:

I’ve given you an answer a number of times now. It’s not simply a straightforward yes or no answer because there are many things I do not accept, nor am I compelled to accept them. Nobody is, because nobody can be. Therefore the question becomes irrelevant.

The more relevant question is whether or not I would support unlawful discrimination against anyone or any group in society and the answer is no, I wouldn’t. I think that all people in any given society should be regarded as equal before the law and not subject to unlawful discrimination.

There are people with far wackier ideas than the examples you’ve given above, such as the idea that they can speak for or represent anyone but themselves. I don’t have to accept your particular flavour of nonsense either, but I wouldn’t want to see you subjected to unlawful discrimination or disproportionate measures should your opinions cause offence.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The more relevant question is whether or not I would support unlawful discrimination against anyone or any group in society and the answer is no, I wouldn’t. I think that all people in any given society should be regarded as equal before the law and not subject to unlawful discrimination.

More dodge and dither.

What I'm suggesting is not fantasy, but an ongoing reality. There are now moves to put transabled people on the same footing as transgender acceptance:

People like Jason have been classified as ‘‘transabled’’ — feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order.

“We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present on “transability” at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa.

“The person could want to become deaf, blind, amputee, paraplegic. It’s a really, really strong desire.”

As the public begins to embrace people who identify as transgender, the trans people within the disability movement are also seeking their due, or at very least a bit of understanding in a public that cannot fathom why anyone would want to be anything other than healthy and mobile.

My question is this:

When an anorexic person looks in the mirror and see obesity, we call it mental illness and something that needs to be treated.

When an able-bodied person looks in the same mirror and sees a disabled person, you are now saying that it's a complex question and there may be cases in which it is warranted.

Why do you have a split opinion on this; one rule for the anorexic, and quite a different rule for the disabled/able bodied person?

By your logic, we are discriminating against anorexic people on the basis that we're not allowing them to do as they please with how they identify their body.

I'd be fascinated to see how you can square that circle.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you believe that an able-bodied person who self-identifies as "disabled", and believes they were born into the wrong body, should have that disablement realised -- whether it's blindness, having limbs chopped off etc.

This may sound insane, but there are people who believe this.

Do you believe that we should accept them as disabled people and try to make that mental image a reality?

No dodge or dither; a straight answer please.

Honestly I couldn't give a flying fúck if someone wants to identify as an ashtray.

It will have absolutely no tangible effect on my life or yours.

If it makes them happy then let them off.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

More dodge and dither.

What I'm suggesting is not fantasy, but an ongoing reality. There are now moves to put transabled people on the same footing as transgender acceptance:

My question is this:

When an anorexic person looks in the mirror and see obesity, we call it mental illness and something that needs to be treated.

When an able-bodied person looks in the same mirror and sees a disabled person, you are now saying that it's a complex question and there may be cases in which it is warranted.

Why do you have a split opinion on this; one rule for the anorexic, and quite a different rule for the disabled/able bodied person?

By your logic, we are discriminating against anorexic people on the basis that we're not allowing them to do as they please with how they identify their body.

I'd be fascinated to see how you can square that circle.

Are you familiar at all with the concept of nuance?

That’s why the answer to your question can never be a simple yes or no, no matter how hard you try and pin anyone down to an answer. Why? Because you’re presenting a false equivalence in suggesting that if anyone accepts one thing, then they must also accept something else. Who made up that rule and who agreed to it apart from yourself?

I’m not bothered either way really is the answer to your question, which is quite distinct from being included in your earlier declaration as though you were speaking for anyone else. You don’t speak for anyone else any more than Ricky Gervais or JK Rowling can speak for anyone else other than themselves. Neither you nor they have that authority.

It’s not fascinating at all that you would attempt to suggest that if someone accepts one concept they must accept something else. Why? I have no issue with homosexual men on the basis that they are homosexual, I have massive issues with twinks behaving as they think women behave, or mincing queens. It’s not because they’re homosexual, it’s because they’re simply tiresome. Therefore I discriminate already between the various groups of men on whatever my preferences and dislikes are. I don’t have to accept them all, and I don’t consider it homophobia if I’m not prepared to entertain a head melt.

I apply the same standards to all people regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, sex, ability, ethnicity, religion and so on. Being an obnoxious cnut isn’t associated with any particular trait or characteristic. Just ask JK Rowling or Ricky Gervais, or better yet take a look in the mirror.

AbusesToilets

Boggles wrote: »

Honestly I couldn't give a flying fúck if someone wants to identify as an ashtray.

It will have absolutely no tangible effect on my life or yours.

If it makes them happy then let them off.

I agree, live and let live. The problem arises when laws are passed that force people to accept and recognise the delusions of others. To buy into whatever fantasy they've concocted, oftentimes as the result of mental illness.

Raconteuse

Yeah identify as whatever you want, but it should not lead to policy change or distortion of reality, and others shouldn't have to go out of their way to accommodate you.

People certainly should not get fired.

One eyed Jack

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I agree, live and let live. The problem arises when laws are passed that force people to accept and recognise the delusions of others. To buy into whatever fantasy they've concocted, oftentimes as the result of mental illness.

That’s not live and let live. A more accurate and honest assessment is live and let live by your standards. Fortunately for everyone else in society, no laws are being passed which force people to accept and recognise your deluded beliefs, to buy into whatever fantasy you’ve concocted in your own head. I don’t think it’s the result of a mental illness, just simply imagining you have some sort of authority you don’t.

It’s one thing to imagine you’re being compelled to do anything, it’s something else entirely when you attempt to perpetuate falsehoods on the basis of your misguided beliefs. Laws are passed already which prohibit unlawful discrimination on a number of grounds, to prevent anyone from compelling you and anyone else from having to accept, recognise or otherwise entertain other people’s fantasies and delusions. The same laws which are meant to protect you, also protect other people from you.

Boggles

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I agree, live and let live. The problem arises when laws are passed that force people to accept and recognise the delusions of others. To buy into whatever fantasy they've concocted, oftentimes as the result of mental illness.

But sure there is laws that specifically protect people with mental illness - which is a broad term TBF.

Are you against them?

AbusesToilets

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not live and let live. A more accurate and honest assessment is live and let live by your standards. Fortunately for everyone else in society, no laws are being passed which force people to accept and recognise your deluded beliefs, to buy into whatever fantasy you’ve concocted in your own head. I don’t think it’s the result of a mental illness, just simply imagining you have some sort of authority you don’t.

It’s one thing to imagine you’re being compelled to do anything, it’s something else entirely when you attempt to perpetuate falsehoods on the basis of your misguided beliefs. Laws are passed already which prohibit unlawful discrimination on a number of grounds, to prevent anyone from compelling you and anyone else from having to accept, recognise or otherwise entertain other people’s fantasies and delusions. The same laws which are meant to protect you, also protect other people from you.

That's demonstrably untrue. People have been punished, lost jobs and court cases because they haven't deigned to recognise that a person can change their biological sex by force of will.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets

AbusesToilets

Boggles wrote: »

But sure there is laws that specifically protect people with mental illness - which is a broad term TBF.

Are you against them?

Do those laws also require that a person publicly agree to whatever delusions a person might have?

A person is free to identify however they choose. That doesn't change the realities of their biology, and it shouldn't force others to pretend it does.

One eyed Jack

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's demonstrably untrue. People have been punished, lost jobs and court cases because they haven't deigned to recognise that a person can change their biological sex by force of will.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets

I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not purposefully misrepresenting the facts in that case. It’s a perfect example of laws which exist already to protect people from a person who claimed that they were unfairly dismissed by their employer. They weren’t unfairly dismissed, and they aren’t being compelled to accept other people’s delusions. The facts of the case are that it was determined their opinions are not a protected belief under existing equality legislation. It was that person who was harbouring a deluded belief that they were being unfairly discriminated against. The facts of the case suggest otherwise, and their employer was within their rights as an employer to decide that they did not have to accept her behaviour.

She is still perfectly entitled to express her opinions, and employers cannot be compelled to offer her a contract of employment. It’s perfectly in line with what you suggested earlier, that nobody should be compelled to accept other people’s delusions? The person in question there is operating under what could only be described as a deluded belief, and she has a problem with the fact that the law does not recognise her beliefs as worthy of protection -

I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

I do not accept that this analysis is undermined by the decision of the Supreme Court in Lee v Ashers that persons should not be compelled to express a message with which they profoundly disagreed unless justification is shown. The Claimant could generally avoid the huge offense caused by calling a trans woman a man without having to refer to her as a woman, as it is often not necessary to refer to a person sex at all. However, where it is, I consider requiring the Claimant to refer to a trans woman as a woman is justified to avoid harassment of that person. Similarly, I do not accept that there is a failure to engage with the importance of the Claimant’s qualified right to freedom of expression, as it is legitimate to exclude a belief that necessarily harms the rights of others through refusal to accept the full effect of a Gender Recognition Certificate or causing harassment to trans women by insisting they are men and trans men by insisting they are women. The human rights balancing exercise goes against the Claimant because of the absolutist approach she adopts.

In respect of the belief that the Claimant contends she does not hold, that everyone has a gender which may be different to their sex at birth and which effectively trumps sex so that trans men are men and transwomen are women. I consider that this is a good example of why, at least in certain circumstances, one needs to apply the Grainger criteria to the lack of belief, rather than the alternative belief. Believing that a trans woman is a woman does not conflict with the approach of the European Court of Human Rights in Goodwin, or the Gender Recognition Act, or involve harassment. It does not face the same issue of incompatibility with human dignity and fundamental rights of others as the lack of that belief does because that lack of belief necessarily involves the view that trans women are men. The lack of belief fails to meet the Grainger criteria.

It is also a slight of hand to suggest that the Claimant merely does not hold the belief that transwomen are women. She positively believes that they are men; and will say so whenever she wishes. Put either as a belief or lack of belief, the view held by the Claimant fails the Grainger criteria and so she does not have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief.


Forstater v CGD Judgement

ceadaoin.

"Slight of hand". Is it just me who thinks that judges should be adequately literate and have the ability to spell words correctly in their rulings?

nthclare

There's a lot of people who are definitely suffering from emotional and mental illnesses, especially these social justice warrior types.

Far too sensitive, angry vengeful, walking contradictions, vile behaviour issues, which they think they can defend at any one time.

Its very much, I think everyone should have the right to express themselves as long as they express what I think is the way they should express themselves.

Is it drugs or behavioural issues maybe both.

Its only online you'll read about these woke liberals, because these people don't mix in my social circle.
I couldn't tolerate their sheer lack of social intelligence.

They're starting to all turn on each other now anyway, and hopefully they will dissappear or go back to sleep to where they woke up from

jimgoose

ceadaoin. wrote: »

"Slight of hand". Is it just me who thinks that judges should be adequately literate and have the ability to spell words correctly in their rulings?

The learned Justices are surprisingly literate. The little Aoifes and Ultans with good leaving certs working as clerks and Meeja gowls could possibly learn something?

AbusesToilets

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not purposefully misrepresenting the facts in that case. It’s a perfect example of laws which exist already to protect people from a person who claimed that they were unfairly dismissed by their employer. They weren’t unfairly dismissed, and they aren’t being compelled to accept other people’s delusions. The facts of the case are that it was determined their opinions are not a protected belief under existing equality legislation. It was that person who was harbouring a deluded belief that they were being unfairly discriminated against. The facts of the case suggest otherwise, and their employer was within their rights as an employer to decide that they did not have to accept her behaviour.

She is still perfectly entitled to express her opinions, and employers cannot be compelled to offer her a contract of employment. It’s perfectly in line with what you suggested earlier, that nobody should be compelled to accept other people’s delusions? The person in question there is operating under what could only be described as a deluded belief, and she has a problem with the fact that the law does not recognise her beliefs as worthy of protection -

I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

I do not accept that this analysis is undermined by the decision of the Supreme Court in Lee v Ashers that persons should not be compelled to express a message with which they profoundly disagreed unless justification is shown. The Claimant could generally avoid the huge offense caused by calling a trans woman a man without having to refer to her as a woman, as it is often not necessary to refer to a person sex at all. However, where it is, I consider requiring the Claimant to refer to a trans woman as a woman is justified to avoid harassment of that person. Similarly, I do not accept that there is a failure to engage with the importance of the Claimant’s qualified right to freedom of expression, as it is legitimate to exclude a belief that necessarily harms the rights of others through refusal to accept the full effect of a Gender Recognition Certificate or causing harassment to trans women by insisting they are men and trans men by insisting they are women. The human rights balancing exercise goes against the Claimant because of the absolutist approach she adopts.

In respect of the belief that the Claimant contends she does not hold, that everyone has a gender which may be different to their sex at birth and which effectively trumps sex so that trans men are men and transwomen are women. I consider that this is a good example of why, at least in certain circumstances, one needs to apply the Grainger criteria to the lack of belief, rather than the alternative belief. Believing that a trans woman is a woman does not conflict with the approach of the European Court of Human Rights in Goodwin, or the Gender Recognition Act, or involve harassment. It does not face the same issue of incompatibility with human dignity and fundamental rights of others as the lack of that belief does because that lack of belief necessarily involves the view that trans women are men. The lack of belief fails to meet the Grainger criteria.

It is also a slight of hand to suggest that the Claimant merely does not hold the belief that transwomen are women. She positively believes that they are men; and will say so whenever she wishes. Put either as a belief or lack of belief, the view held by the Claimant fails the Grainger criteria and so she does not have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief.


Forstater v CGD Judgement

Respectfully, I disagree with the position taken by the judge. He posits it's discriminatory for the claimant to express her belief that a transwoman isn't a woman. It's not a belief tho, it's biological reality. No amount of wishing is going to change their dna.

paleoperson

I don't respectfully disagree at all. Anyone defending this tripe is a clown, plain and simple.

When SJWs has gotten so out of hand JK Rowling is in the firing line you know things are bad.