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

One eyed Jack

AbusesToilets wrote: »

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.

The Judges interpretation of UK equality legislation and international Human Rights Law was flawless. Neither UK equality legislation nor international human rights law are based solely upon biological realities. That wasn’t even the question which had to be determined in this particular case. What was to be determined was whether or not the person in question had been discriminated against and on that basis unfairly dismissed by her employer as a result of her opinions which she was trying to argue are a protected belief. Not only did the Judge disagree with her, but UK equality legislation and international human rights law disagrees with her too. The only way in which her opinions become a protected belief under equality legislation is if the law is changed, and this was a test case in an attempt to do just that. It failed.

It’s similar to the way in which the IRFU ended their contracts with the four rugby players, or Newstalk ended their contract with George Hook. Those cases didn’t constitute discrimination either. The employers were within their rights to end their contracts due to their behaviour. The person in question in this particular case was given every opportunity to modify their behaviour and keep their opinions to themselves. They chose not to, leaving their employer with the choice to either accept their behaviour and allow them to ruin their employers reputation, or end their contract. Their employer made it clear they didn’t have to accept her behaviour. She doesn’t accept the fact that she did anything wrong of course.

nthclare

paleoperson wrote: »

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.

That's a great poinl, a friend of mine who's an old druid type he's a sociologist too, old school at that.

He reckons all this social justice warrior thing is a fad a bit like the hippy era and free love thing.

He suggested they'll eventually dissappear and go back into society and wise up or some of them will partake in some mass suicide ritual, which is a bit bonkers I can't see that happening.

I think there's some kind of glitch in society, and unfortunately the vulnerable people get caught up with the drama.

There's a lot to be said for tough love and gratitude.

Im going to light fire now and put on some deep house and have a special friend rice

beejee

paleoperson wrote: »

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.

Cream rises to the top.

Simultaneously, distasteful specks of coagulated shoite fight for space at the bottom.

Boggles

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 couldn't give a monkeys if someone identifies as the second coming of Christ, but I do draw a firm red line when that individual demands that I respect his identification, his demand that pronouns be changed to accommodate his delusion, and for children to be actively taught that this is a respectable course of discourse in society.

And you've avoided my central question, too: namely, if someone wishes to dismember their body to cater to the belief that they are in fact a disabled person trapped in an able-persons body, should we respect that and indeed pay for it to happen, too? Should we teach it to children as a possible direction in life, as is happening with gender identification / transgender etc.?

If your answer to that is Yes - then the follow-up question is why shouldn't we do the same thing with those with anorexia who equally believe their body is out-of-sync with the mental image of their body?

Lewis_Benson

What the **** is this shyte......
The world is gone ****ing mental

JohnnyFlash

nthclare wrote: »

Im going to light fire now and put on some deep house and have a special friend rice

Mustn’t have been much of a friend if you‘ve decided to shred him and have him with rice.

nthclare

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Mustn’t have been much of a friend if you‘ve decided to shred him and have him with rice.

Are you saying that im having a he for dinner, im absolutely outraged, and for your information they're sliced not shredded and now special means unimportant, and fried means frozen...

So im having ice cream and I can call it a special friend dice if i want to.
How dare you suggest that I can't spell fried too...
Im going to tell your employer and you'll loose your job.

All jokes aside but that's exactly what you're up against with the woke, social justice warrior tribe.
Absolute narcissism and mind fck ology.

AbusesToilets

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The Judges interpretation of UK equality legislation and international Human Rights Law was flawless. Neither UK equality legislation nor international human rights law are based solely upon biological realities. That wasn’t even the question which had to be determined in this particular case. What was to be determined was whether or not the person in question had been discriminated against and on that basis unfairly dismissed by her employer as a result of her opinions which she was trying to argue are a protected belief. Not only did the Judge disagree with her, but UK equality legislation and international human rights law disagrees with her too. The only way in which her opinions become a protected belief under equality legislation is if the law is changed, and this was a test case in an attempt to do just that. It failed.

It’s similar to the way in which the IRFU ended their contracts with the four rugby players, or Newstalk ended their contract with George Hook. Those cases didn’t constitute discrimination either. The employers were within their rights to end their contracts due to their behaviour. The person in question in this particular case was given every opportunity to modify their behaviour and keep their opinions to themselves. They chose not to, leaving their employer with the choice to either accept their behaviour and allow them to ruin their employers reputation, or end their contract. Their employer made it clear they didn’t have to accept her behaviour. She doesn’t accept the fact that she did anything wrong of course.

Therein lies the problem. They're not basing the law upon reality, they're allowing "beliefs" to trump reason. Your analogy doesn't fit. The IRFU fired the players because they were deemed to have cast the organization in a negative light by their behavior, and thus jepordised sponsorship monies. This woman was punished for stating fact. The church did similar during the Inquisition, persecuting Galileo for example. Seems that the same thought processes are en Vogue presently, hopefully with less violent outcomes.

AbusesToilets

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. They're not basing the law upon reality, they're allowing "beliefs" to trump reason. Your analogy doesn't fit. The IRFU fired the players because they were deemed to have cast the organization in a negative light by their behavior, and thus jepordised sponsorship monies. This woman was punished for stating fact. The church did similar during the Inquisition, persecuting Galileo for example. Seems that the same thought processes are en Vogue presently, hopefully with less violent outcomes.

It's quite frightening if you think about it.

Once upon a time, law was about facts and evidence. Now, with the advent of gender identification and the transgender question, we are witnessing the defenestration of biological realities.

This isn't a question of being progessive or liberal, it's about being consistent with the best available evidence.

GeetarPick

The replies on her tweet cannot be real. I refuse to believe there are that many people who could be offended by this.

One eyed Jack

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. They're not basing the law upon reality, they're allowing "beliefs" to trump reason. Your analogy doesn't fit. The IRFU fired the players because they were deemed to have cast the organization in a negative light by their behavior, and thus jepordised sponsorship monies. This woman was punished for stating fact. The church did similar during the Inquisition, persecuting Galileo for example. Seems that the same thought processes are en Vogue presently, hopefully with less violent outcomes.

Now you are wilfully misrepresenting the facts of the case. She wasn’t fired for stating facts, her employer decided not to renew her contract of employment given that she was damaging the organisations reputation and complaints had been received about her behaviour. She was doing exactly as you suggest - casting her employer in a bad light. She’s perfectly free to state facts in her own time now as her former employer owes her nothing. Her opinions still don’t constitute a protected belief, and she is not free to harass people on social media and cause offence as she pleases. There are laws against that sort of behaviour and unless those laws are changed, she isn’t being treated any differently to anyone else who engages in the same sort of behaviour. The same laws which apply to everyone else in society apply equally to her, and she doesn’t like that, and tried to have the law changed on that basis.

Perhaps in another 20 years she might succeed in challenging the law successfully, but until then nobody is under any obligation to entertain her nonsense. She wasn’t just stating facts, and I think you know that. Nobody should have to put up with her behaviour, and the law supports the idea that nobody can be compelled to accept her behaviour, or her opinions. That they are facts is neither here nor there, it’s the fact that she wasn’t prepared to keep her facts to herself. It would be no different if I were to go into the office tomorrow (or Monday at least :pac:) and start stating facts to my co-workers. Neither they nor my employers should have to put up with that shìt. Nobody should, and the law supports that view.

Sheeps

This is the man that the woman who lost her job called a man, which has kicked off this entire debaucle.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-48295000

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's quite frightening if you think about it.

Once upon a time, law was about facts and evidence. Now, with the advent of gender identification and the transgender question, we are witnessing the defenestration of biological realities.

This isn't a question of being progessive or liberal, it's about being consistent with the best available evidence.

When was that? What laws are you referring to specifically because human rights law has never been about facts and evidence. It’s always been based upon ideological beliefs -


Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected as natural and legal rights in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable, fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being" and which are "inherent in all human beings", regardless of their age, nation of origin, location, language, religion, ethnicity, or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone. They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law and imposing an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others, and it is generally considered that they should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances; for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution.


“Defenestration of biological realities”, my arse :rolleyes:

Boggles

AbusesToilets wrote: »

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

There are no laws that compels a person to publicly agree with anything, delusional or otherwise.

wakka12

First world problems, christ

Dante7

GeetarPick wrote: »

The replies on her tweet cannot be real. I refuse to believe there are that many people who could be offended by this.

What you need to realise is that this is a small, but vocal group. Practically every single person in the world who believes this crap and was offended by her tweet, will have posted a comment on the thread. They are all active on social media and reside in the same bubble. But they are a tiny minority.

GeetarPick

Dante7 wrote: »

What you need to realise is that this is a small, but vocal group. Practically every single person in the world who believes this crap and was offended by her tweet, will have posted a comment on the thread. They are all active on social media and reside in the same bubble. But they are a tiny minority.

Thing is, they are actually having an affect. They're getting people fired from their jobs and completely ruining peoples future prospects. How can a tiny minority do that?

Dante7

GeetarPick wrote: »

Thing is, they are actually having an affect. They're getting people fired from their jobs and completely ruining peoples future prospects. How can a tiny minority do that?

That's the question. Cleverer people than me have said that it is Post modern cultural Marxism and that the activists have been amplified via social media. It has resulted in the creation of a new Dogma with its own blasphemy laws. It's the modern day equivalent of Galileo being persecuted for stating that the earth revolves around the sun.

Boggles

GeetarPick wrote: »

Thing is, they are actually having an affect. They're getting people fired from their jobs and completely ruining peoples future prospects. How can a tiny minority do that?

It was her work colleagues who made a complaint about her, not some "hero" on twitter.

Again though, she didn't get fired, she had too apply for a new contract and she wasn't considered.

ceadaoin.

Dont know if it's already been mentioned but the advocate are trying to get Ricky Gervais fired from.his hosting job at the golden globes for his "transphobic" tweets.

https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2019/12/20/golden-globes-host-ricky-gervais-goes-transphobic-tweetstorm

nthclare

Dante7 wrote: »

That's the question. Cleverer people than me have said that it is Post modern cultural Marxism and that the activists have been amplified via social media. It has resulted in the creation of a new Dogma with its own blasphemy laws. It's the modern day equivalent of Galileo being persecuted for stating that the earth revolves around the sun.

Christopher Hitchins, before he died warned us about that in the future and he was worried about it.

So now people are stating scientific facts and loosing their lively hoods over it.

Jehova Jehova Jehova....

Remember that in the life of Brian and the stoning scene.

Who said jehova....

Now its said who said there's only two genders, stone the fukers....

Who's head is on the chopping board next?

Sir Oxman

GeetarPick wrote: »

Thing is, they are actually having an affect. They're getting people fired from their jobs and completely ruining peoples future prospects. How can a tiny minority do that?

Stealth social policy change - select NGOs being the only ones listened to - they already have their plans and solutions wrapped up before the lobbying begins and before govts have their plans evolved.



Here is an account of their methods and revealingly, Ireland is held as a poster child in how to get this sh1t in the backdoor.
https://www.iglyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/IGLYO_v3-1.pdf


Before the populace knows, it's law.



Extract:
7. Tie your campaign to more popular reform In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.


8. Avoid excessive press coverage and exposureAnother technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result. The effects of this can be dangerous: two out of five transgender people experience hate crime each year in the UK, with young people the least likely to report incidents to the police.37 One in four trans people (26 per cent) directly experience transphobic abuse online each month.38 The UK Home Office have reported that hate crime in general has risen by 48 per cent between 2014 and 2017, with the number of recorded hate crimes and incidents based on sexual orientation rising by 70 percent over the same period.39Against this background, many believe that public campaigning has been detrimental to progress, as much of the general public is not well informed about trans issues, and therefore misinterpretation can arise. In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue. Similarly, in Norway, campaigners developed strong ties with youth politicians, who then presented to the senior members of their parties on the changes that were needed. This technique was effective at persuading more senior politicians, as the changes were being suggested from within their own party rather than an external organisation. We also saw this technique in Denmark.

beejee

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Stealth social policy change - select NGOs being the only ones listened to - they already have their plans and solutions wrapped up before the lobbying begins and before govts have their plans evolved.



Here is an account of their methods and revealingly, Ireland is held as a poster child in how to get this sh1t in the backdoor.
https://www.iglyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/IGLYO_v3-1.pdf


Before the populace knows, it's law.



Extract:
7. Tie your campaign to more popular reform In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.


8. Avoid excessive press coverage and exposureAnother technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result. The effects of this can be dangerous: two out of five transgender people experience hate crime each year in the UK, with young people the least likely to report incidents to the police.37 One in four trans people (26 per cent) directly experience transphobic abuse online each month.38 The UK Home Office have reported that hate crime in general has risen by 48 per cent between 2014 and 2017, with the number of recorded hate crimes and incidents based on sexual orientation rising by 70 percent over the same period.39Against this background, many believe that public campaigning has been detrimental to progress, as much of the general public is not well informed about trans issues, and therefore misinterpretation can arise. In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue. Similarly, in Norway, campaigners developed strong ties with youth politicians, who then presented to the senior members of their parties on the changes that were needed. This technique was effective at persuading more senior politicians, as the changes were being suggested from within their own party rather than an external organisation. We also saw this technique in Denmark.

Quite interesting, and not surprising.

There is method to seeming madness. Quite worrying that such underhand groups can gain so much leverage (not just this issue alone)

shutup

Is one brain cell jack the biggest idiot on boards?
When you factor in stupidity, pettiness, aggression and relentlessness, they have to be right up there.

Ted_YNWA

shutup wrote: »

Is one brain cell jack the biggest idiot on boards?
When you factor in stupidity, pettiness, aggression and relentlessness, they have to be right up there.

Mod

There is plenty of them on boards.

Please don't descend to their level by insulting other users.

mzungu

Dante7 wrote: »

That's the question. Cleverer people than me have said that it is Post modern cultural Marxism and that the activists have been amplified via social media. It has resulted in the creation of a new Dogma with its own blasphemy laws. It's the modern day equivalent of Galileo being persecuted for stating that the earth revolves around the sun.

I wouldn't agree. That's a conspiracy theory and little else. Basically a buzzword that probably gets a few yanks hot under the collar due to their previous history with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Plus, I doubt most Marxists would have much time for the (quite broad) tenets of postmodernism, and likewise postmodernists wouldn't be fans of metanarratives like Marxism.

While we are at it, I doubt either Marxists or postmodernists would be too pushed either way about the topic up for discussion in this thread.

The whole cultural Marxism stuff is really just dreamed up waffle that incorrectly conflates two opposed ideologies as a means to create some sort of "Reds under the bed" panic for these times. It really shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

GeetarPick

mzungu wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. That's a conspiracy theory and little else. Basically a buzzword that probably gets a few yanks hot under the collar due to their previous history with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Plus, I doubt most Marxists would have much time for the (quite broad) tenets of postmodernism, and likewise postmodernists wouldn't be fans of metanarratives like Marxism.

While we are at it, I doubt either Marxists or postmodernists would be too pushed either way about the topic up for discussion in this thread.

The whole cultural Marxism stuff is really just dreamed up waffle that incorrectly conflates two opposed ideologies as a means to create some sort of "Reds under the bed" panic for these times. It really shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

Sure what's the difference between that and people using terms like "incel" or "snowflake".

donaghs

Boggles wrote: »

It was her work colleagues who made a complaint about her, not some "hero" on twitter.

Again though, she didn't get fired, she had too apply for a new contract and she wasn't considered.

Seems like that same thing to me. You lose your job because of your opinion. Easier though not to renew contract than to “fire” someone.

A colleagues complaint doesnt make it ok. Depends on what she said and why the colleague considered this a sackable/non-renewable offence.

donaghs

mzungu wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. That's a conspiracy theory and little else. Basically a buzzword that probably gets a few yanks hot under the collar due to their previous history with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Plus, I doubt most Marxists would have much time for the (quite broad) tenets of postmodernism, and likewise postmodernists wouldn't be fans of metanarratives like Marxism.

While we are at it, I doubt either Marxists or postmodernists would be too pushed either way about the topic up for discussion in this thread.

The whole cultural Marxism stuff is really just dreamed up waffle that incorrectly conflates two opposed ideologies as a means to create some sort of "Reds under the bed" panic for these times. It really shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

I think post-modern ideas in general have helped create an environment where it becomes chilling to publicly express a belief that there are two biological sexes in humanity (with the caveat of up to 1.7% intersex conditions also).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
“... Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progres”

One eyed Jack

donaghs wrote: »

Seems like that same thing to me. You lose your job because of your opinion. Easier though not to renew contract than to “fire” someone.

A colleagues complaint doesnt make it ok. Depends on what she said and why the colleague considered this a sackable/non-renewable offence.

People have lost their jobs because of their opinions before this particular case. There’s nothing particularly outstanding about this case that makes it any different from any other case where a person was of the belief that they were being discriminated against by their employer and were unfairly dismissed from their employment.

She was fairly dismissed from her employment because of her conduct which amounted to creating a hostile working environment for other employees. Her attempt to claim she was fired because of her beliefs is quite similar to this case in which the claimant tried to suggest that they were discriminated against and unfairly dismissed on the basis of their beliefs about veganism -


He added: "Although the manner in which I was dismissed was intensely distressing for me, some good may come of it if I am able to establish this valuable protection for all ethical vegans.

"If we are successful in that hearing, we will then proceed to a hearing on the specifics of my dismissal."

But the League Against Cruel Sports said it sacked Mr Casamitjana for gross misconduct and that linking the decision to his veganism was "factually wrong".

In a statement to the BBC, it added: "Mr Casamitjana was dismissed from his position because of gross misconduct.


Tribunal to decide if veganism is protected religious belief


In similar fashion, Ms. Forstater’s claim that she was discriminated against and unfairly dismissed by her employer as a consequence of her beliefs is a misrepresentation of the facts (one would imagine if someone is so bound to state facts, they would at least state facts and not misrepresent the facts, but hey ho!) -


On 2 October 2018 the Claimant stated in part of her response to the complaints against her:
“I have been told that it is offensive to say "transwomen are men" or that women means "adult human female". However since these statement are true I will continue to say them. Yes the definition of females excludes males (but includes women who do not conform with gendered norms). Policy debates where facts are viewed as offensive are dangerous. I would of course respect anyone’s self-definition of their gender identity in any social and professional context; I have no desire or intention to be rude to people.”


Clearly from the evidence presented at the tribunal, she appears to have had quite a desire to be as rude and incendiary as possible towards other people, and the Judge goes on to point out -


However, I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. She goes so far as to deny the right of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate to be the sex to which they have transitioned. I do not accept the Claimant's contention that the Gender Recognition Act produces a mere legal fiction. It provides a right, based on the assessment of the various interrelated convention rights, for a person to transition, in certain circumstances, and thereafter to be treated for all purposes as the being of the sex to which they have transitioned. In Goodwin a fundamental aspect of the reasoning of the ECHR was that a person who has transitioned should not be forced to identify their gender assigned at birth. Such a person should be entitled to live as a person of the sex to which they have transitioned. That was recognised in the Gender Recognition Act which states that the change of sex applies for “all purposes”. Therefore, if a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate that person is legally a woman. That is not something that the Claimant is entitled to ignore.


It was the Judges determination that she had the right to freedom of expression, but that right did not extend to allowing her to ignore the rights of other people, and consequently her former employers were not found guilty of discrimination against her on the basis that her beliefs were not worthy of being protected as a philosophical belief under equality legislation in a democratic society -


There is nothing to stop the Claimant campaigning against the proposed revision to the Gender Recognition Act to be based more on self-identification. She is entitled to put forward her opinion that these should be some spaces that are limited to women assigned female at birth where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, that does not mean that her absolutist view that sex is immutable is a protected belief for the purposes of the EqA. The Claimant can legitimately put forward her arguments about the importance of some safe spaces that are only be available to women identified female at birth, without insisting on calling trans women men.


The whole purpose of equality legislation is to prevent unlawful discrimination against anyone on the basis of any of the protected characteristics covered in legislation. Ms. Forstater attempted to make a mockery of the concept and got called out on her bullshìt. The case is as simple as that really.