Mad stuff, dafuq is the world coming to?
That’s not the analogy I was making. But if that’s what you’re giving me to work with - it would be unreasonable for an adherent of Islam to expect that they should be able to compel anyone else to behave as though they too are an adherent of Islam. It would be equally unreasonable to expect that an adherent of Islam could be compelled to behave as though they are not an adherent of Islam.
In either case it could constitute harassment were anyone to continue to try and coerce or humiliate another person who does not share their world views or beliefs. These protections exist in a democratic society for good reason, with the aim of treating all people as equals before the law, or as you suggest - people maintaining the right to advocate for whatever is in their own interests, while harassment of anyone is still unlawful.
I don’t know am I sufficiently making the point that you cannot force people to behave as though they share your beliefs, but at no point whatsoever does anyone have the right to harass another person. These are laws which apply to all people in society equally, regardless of what their beliefs are or who they choose to advocate for.
Where is fear and hatred in my definition?
Unless it seems you are suggesting that using my definition there are so many that could be called transphobes.
Interestingly, a couple of posts before felt that no one on this thread was a transphobe using that definition
I think those people who are determined to state that the only two genders are those which match their biological sex are transphobes. There are several in this thread.
On rights, was it that if trans people gain rights, someone has to lose rights. I reject that premise as nonsense. But if you can copy it again, I'd be happy to talk through.
Doesnt sound like there is much debate. It is not compelling people who are not religious to believe in religion. A better analogy is if someone lives their life as a muslim, you do not get to overrule them and choose otherwise.
There are all manner of rights which conflict with others - the rights of people who are religious for example, and the rights of people who are not. Nobody is suggesting that anyone’s rights are being compromised, everyone is entitled to equal rights and protection from unlawful discrimination.
We’ve been introducing four year olds to religion for generations now and it’s not as though they are expected to have the same understanding of religion as adults. Ideas in relation to gender are delivered in the same way, recognising that children do not have the same cognitive capacity as adults (I often find myself questioning the validity of that assumption tbh as though the reverse might well be more accurate 😏).
Your thought process on this very easily and established definable word ending in phobia does not surprise one tiny bit.
There is virtually zero fear or hatred expressed on this thread. There is debate on what is the best way to deal with young children who, whether temporarily or permanently, don't fall into gender stereotypical behaviour.
If you want an infinite number of ridiculous definitions without even skimming the academic or NGO sphere, look at the various UK political party websites.
haha... okay... based on that explanation, very few people on this thread would be transphobes. I think you might want to reread what you wrote, and add a few qualifiers, because it doesn't match the manner of your posts over the last two pages.
Unimpeachable logic 🙄 it would be if it actually represented anything I wrote. Don't reinterpret what I've written to help an argument you want to make. Stick to what I have written and argue against it.
Oh... remember what I said about rights?
If I were king, I'd ban trans women from competing against women in power sports in the Olympics to stop transphobes from relentlessly talking about it as if its a real issue. If all other trans rights were guaranteed, I'd sacrifice the trans women athletes for the greater good. Allow ye can have yere precious Olympics. Would it affect .0001% of people? Its only purpose is as a talking point to put trans activists on the back foot.
Your contention is that no one on this thread should be able to devise their own definition of what transphobia is?
I know you don’t equate trans activists with transphobes, clearly. However that’s where this whole line of discussion stemmed from when you questioned whether it was reasonable behaviour on the part of people who do not subscribe to an ideology they do not share, to be compelled to act as though they do. It’s no different than expecting people who are not religious to behave as though they share beliefs they do not. You’re still misunderstanding the point of the judgment in that it protects people from discrimination on the grounds of a particular philosophical belief system, whether or not they share in that particular philosophical belief system.
If you had read the guidelines being referred to in the opening post, you would be aware that people who are transgender are already protected from unlawful discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. This includes children who choose to undergo social transition. The law also protects people who do not subscribe to the belief that people can choose their preferred gender -
I understand of course it’s why advocacy matters, regardless of whatever someone chooses to advocate for, which is why I answered your question the way I did - when people make what are considered unreasonable demands, they are likely to experience resistance in equal measure.
You do not get to have your own interpretation of transphobia, racism or homophobia. Or rather you are free to do so but do not expect anyone to take you seriously.
At all.
Even if that denial of rights comes into conflict with women's rights (such as Olympic women's sport)?
Are you happy to compromise one set of rights in favour of another set of rights?
We introduce all of this complexity to four year olds at our peril.
No, I've been pretty clear in what I call a transphobe - anyone who denies the rights, or diminishes the experiences, of someone who feels their gender doesnt match their biological sex at birth.
So now the person who says a spectrum of genders is fundamental to understanding trans rights (me) sees things in Black and White. Whereas those who see things as being male and female and nothing else are the open-minded. Unimpeachable logic.
The trans- community is asking us to discriminate against facts in favour of subjective opinion / emotion.
That's not a fair nor just transaction.
Not really. It's just selectively limiting itself. We both know what will happen next to a child who is accepted for changing their gender and grows used to "their" preferred pronoun. They'll hang out with others like themselves, explore the overall topic over time, and become exposed to more influence that will lead them towards an actual transition. After all, they've already been accepted for changing their gender, what's the problem with changing their sex?
It's a tactic for debating. That's all. Limiting the scope of the argument, refusing the arguments of what comes next. It's the same argument that refuses to recognise that to be fair and supportive about gender change (for those who want it), others must be exposed to the option (so those hiding their interest can be allowed be free), and it must be coached in favorable terms (in language small children will understand and accept), and so, the overall idea of both gender change, and transgenderism is promoted. But you're not going to get a direct answer, just deflections of one sort or another.
Well... see.. here's the thing. The internet. Social media. Trans advocacy. A crusade. That's what I'm against. And that is why I would be considered a transphobe.
For me, i run with the older meaning of phobe, which would be a hatred or contempt for a group of people. I don't have that. I am very critical of the Trans agenda, I feel that it's not good for society, and there's too little unbiased research out there on the topic. Social sciences and modern psychology aren't the best sources for validation in my eyes.
So, yes... I've never hidden my dislike of the trans movement from my partners or friends. They know who I am, and the fact that it's not personal. It's about the overall movement.. and oddly enough, most of them agree. Those who don't, respect my opinion because I'm not a foaming in the mouth addict of social media, hell bent on making sure that everyone hears and is forced to agree with my opinion.
I learned this years ago when it came to the LGBTQ movement along with the Pride events. There are the social movers, the influencers, the people who bitch and moan online 24/7, and who push ever increasingly aggressive points of view.... and then there's the average joe, mary or whatever, who just wants to live their own lives, and not be judged for it... while also.. not judging others for not instantly accepting them. That was an important realisation for me. Sensible.
Now, I get it. You see the world in colors of black and white, with very little in-between. That can be seen by your fixation on transphobe, or that you've ignored my points about other peoples rights, instead focusing entirely on trans rights. However, I don't see the world in two colors, because I know from experience that it's nothing that simple. Nor is the trans movement. Everything has positives and negatives, but you would have us see only the positives of transgenderism, labelling anyone who sees the negatives as being a transphobe.
You can say it as often as you like, I do not believe the people should have a right to discriminate, or be institutionally supported to do so.
And as long as you (and others, including this one appeal court judge in the UK) believe that people should be protected in their discrimination, activists have every right to advocate to change those policies/laws. If pro transphobe laws exist, so be it. I do not equate pro trans activists and pro transphobe activitists as two sides of the same coin.
Trans activists are looking for a right not to be discriminated against. If transphobes refuse to recognise this and fight to prevent those rights from coming into force so be it. Its why activism and advocacy matters. More power to their elbow.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it appears as though you wish to reserve the right to refer to other people who do not share your beliefs in whatever way you like, while suggesting that they should be denied the same right as you already have. I’m curious to know how you square that one.
That aside, the protected characteristic only applies in cases of employment law in the UK since last year. It recognises the additional rights to be protected from discrimination from either side - those people who hold gender critical beliefs, AND those people who do not, similar to the way in which existing equality legislation offers protection from discrimination on any of the other grounds of protected characteristics. It recognises the fact that phobes gonna phobe, but still nobody is permitted to unfairly discriminate against anyone or harass anyone.
It also protects people who do not subscribe to transgender ideologies from being targeted by activists.
Again it's social transitioning this a a fact ,
Your opinion is wrong ....
I don't believe that GCD should be a protected characteristic. A transphobe can be closeted just like any racist, or homophobe is. I'm sure there are thousands in all sorts of jobs. Obviously, if the transphobe discriminates by his/her beliefs in their job, the employer is still bound by law. That this still exists and is given some legal protection justifies the activism and advocacy for trans rights that lots seem to hate.
I’m not excusing anything, because I don’t need to. It’s precisely why I made the point that harassment is unlawful. Paul McGrath is free to refer to himself however he prefers; however he cannot compel anyone else to refer to him however he prefers, and attempting to do so knowing that person is not amenable to such a position, is unreasonable behaviour on his part. It would also be unreasonable for anyone to expect they should be able to refer to Paul McGrath however they prefer either.
The same is true of anyone who wishes their preferred pronouns be used when referring to them. I understand completely that you believe it’s unreasonable NOT to recognise people according to their preferred gender identity, but if you’re capable of seeing the issue from anyone’s perspective other than your own, it shouldn’t be that difficult to see why for them it is unreasonable to be compelled to participate in an ideology or belief system which they do not share.
Perhaps a real-life example might demonstrate the point better - in Maya Forstaters case it was determined that gender-critical beliefs were a protected characteristic. This means that people who hold gender-critical beliefs were protected from unlawful discrimination, and it also had the effect of protecting people who do not hold gender-critical beliefs from unlawful discrimination.
It’s unreasonable to expect that anyone who holds the belief that gender is an immutable characteristic can be compelled to behave as though they hold a contrary belief. This doesn’t excuse anyone who chooses to harass another person or people. They still have the right to keep their opinions of other people to themselves.
So concentrate on the individuals when saying things that could reasonably cause offence. Would you tell the people that you dated that you are a admitted transphobe?
Yes, but there is a difference between individuals and the movement itself. It's just like how the LGB movement barely represents LGB people anymore, except for the most vocal of groups. It's the same for the Trans movement. I've dated/had relationships with Trans people, and they knew they were different. However, the demand to be perceived and treated the same as the other gender, tends to come from the movement. (or researchers writing long papers on the topic).
I have no issue with Trans people themselves. I don't particularly agree with them, but it's their choice. I'm good with that. I do, however, have issues with the Trans movement.. just as I have issues with the LGBTQ movement, as a bisexual male.
There is no discussion of transition with the child. No matter what way you try to spin it.
I would think every trans woman knows exactly how they differ from biological-born women. And they understand that there is always a gap between what they feel and what a biological woman feels. I would think the hormone treatments or the surgeries that they have, and will need to have, would be a reminder. If their actions get them to a place where they are happy, well and good.
Put another way, it begins the conditioning process.
It's the gateway to transitioning, because it normalises the whole Trans ideology from childhood to adulthood. It will encourage many to seek the physical transition as they get older, especially when physical transitioning becomes normalised in society too.
I think you are excusing those who do not believe trans people to be anything other than their biological sex, and refuse to accommodate to their identity.
Earlier you spoke about rights... surely those people who refuse, have the right to do so?
I don't believe a trans woman to be a woman. I believe a trans woman to be a trans woman. They've chosen to be different. It's that simple. I'll use their preferred pronouns (if they're reasonable), but I'm not going to pretend that she/he/they are the same as a biological woman just because they want to be. So... I will be polite to others, and respect their choices as adults... but I expect them to respect my personal beliefs. That is reasonable. Now, if medical science gets to the point where operations can change a persons body completely to the point of being identical to that of a woman, and be able to implant the experiences/memories of being a woman, then I'll revise my opinion. But until then, a trans woman is simply a trans woman. A different gender entirely.
Yeah, if a traveller requests you to stop calling him a K____r or a black person requests that you stop calling him a N_____r, or a pakastani or a disabled person can request you stop referring to them by something that insults them, they really need to respect the fact when you refuse to do so. Otherwise its a double standard. Really?
They are interfering with my right to be a racist, transphobe etc.
I have a disorder myself. Doesnt bother my everyday life, not visible and hardly profound, but I know from my work that it can be upsetting to some.
Name change and preferred pronouns ,that's transitioning no matter what way you try to spin it ,or edit it
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
