Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Vixen]

You... didn't point out any difference. You said something about yourself, but have not specified how this is actually different from Rowling in any meaningful way, and most importantly, have given no reason why it's even relevant to the topic at hand. And lastly, this isn't even responsive to my post.

Rowling has long hair and I have short hair. That's a difference between me and Rowling. I don't expect anyone to give a ****, because it's not relevant to anything.



No, I did not make that up. For example:



Nothing about this post of yours actually says anything about the merits of her argument. In fact, this post says nothing about her argument at all. Instead, you're trying to create an emotional reaction to Rowling herself, which you then hope will color people's opinions of her position.

The difference between myself and Rowling is that I am on a chat forum. She has put out a carefully crafted essay and published it as an advocacy - as she states - of Maya Forstater's views.

I didn't say it was good or bad.

However, for you to say that I am just as bad as her is ridiculous in this respect, for obvious reasons.

 

[theprestige]

And bravo to you and your fellow travellers for working it all out correctly!

Now, if you'd only impart your findings to the clearly stupid, ignorant and inexpert people (including a fair share of (cis)women) who've made medical/scientific assessments of the validity of transgender identity, and who are involved in developing & legislating transgender-rights public policies. They'll be pleased and impressed to learn from you how they're getting everything so very wrong!

Nobody has made a medical/scientific assessment of the validity of transgender identity.*

I've imparted my findings to the participants in this thread. The reception has been mixed.

---
*I've actually been thinking a lot about your premise lately, and hope to have a longer post addressing it in the next day or so.

 

[Vixen]

I don't understand this at all. How does the belief in biological sex being protected constitute hate speech? Is it the protection that's hate speech? Is it stating the belief that's hate speech?

What exactly is the hate speech here? I've got no idea. Perhaps you can give an example of a sentence which would constitute hate speech but which is somehow affected by this ruling.

Under US law, BTW, there's no such thing as hate speech. It isn't a thing. So what may seem obvious to you isn't obvious to me.

Under the laws of England and Wales (and likely Scotland and Northern Ireland), the Equality Act establishes the rights of certain groups not to suffer discrimination. This includes women, the disabled, ethnic minorities, sexual minorites and religious beliefs.

Forstater managing to get 'a belief in biological sex' established as an additional protected characteristic means that if someone is anti-transgender in the workplace and that causes substantial distress or detriment to their target as a direct result of it, the person who 'believes in biological sex' cannot be punished as they are protected. Thus Forstater was found to have been wrongly dismissed for being a believer in biological sex, even though it was a simple case of her contract not being renewed.

The result of this (absurd) new law as will be enshrined in the Attorney General's new Bill of Rights means that it is very likely people will no longer be protected from race hate, sex discrimination, disability discrimination but people who believe in biological sex who express their hatred of those who do not present as the biological sex the AG says they should present are legally protected from being reprimanded, disciplined, sacked or sued for any distress or detriment they might cause to such a person.

 

[theprestige]

"And that is by design"???

On what basis, therefore, do you challenge the view of the APA (and its affiliated psychiatric associations throughout the world) when it assesses that

1) A natal female who sincerely identifies as Queen Nefertiti has a psychiatric disorder;

while

2) A natal female who sincerely identifies as the gender "man" does not have a psychiatric disorder?

As I understand it, according to the APA neither of them has a psychiatric disorder, as long as they report no distress from their self-identification. A woman that is happy to imagine she is Nefertiti, and is unconcerned if nobody else is much inclined to play along, is probably not going to be diagnosed by the APA with a psychiatric disorder.

On the other hand, a man who goes to his psychiatrist and complains of feeling depression and anxiety related to his being prohibited from using the women's restroom even though he believes he is a woman, probably would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

 

[Vixen]

I'm confused. Is Rowling supposed to keep her opinions to herself, out of her duty of care to not inflame the trolls?

Or is she supposed to speak her mind freely, like every other human exercising their rights, and just ignore the inevitable trolls?

My apologies, my sentence was incomplete. I meant to say that people of JK Rowling's stature (multimullion worldwide readers, mostly children) has a duty of care to be aware of the impact of anything they might publish. (Sorry, I omitted the word impact.) Thus it seems disingenuous for Rowling to claim surprise at the entirely predictable backlash. I would go further and suggest ISTM that she deliberately courts high feeling and indeed uses it to fuel further high feeling.

 

[theprestige]

Misogyny is an emotion. It is a 'hatred of women'. How can a policy be 'misogynist'?

The policy outcomes are effectively misogynistic. Saying that you had no idea how anti-woman they are, and that you yourself harbor no misogynistic feelings, is fine - as long as you stop supporting anti-woman policies once their anti-woman nature has been explained to you. If you keep supporting anti-woman policies after being told what they are, what are we to make of your protest that you don't hate women?

 

[GlennB]

Misogyny is an emotion. It is a 'hatred of women'. How can a policy be 'misogynist'?

Easy. The policy is born of a hatred* of women and is designed to harm or disadvantage them.

*I'm using 'hatred' here in the sense you have. I'd disagree that misogyny is necessarily a form of hatred. And, yes, I'm fully aware of the meaning of the Greek roots of the word.

 

[Vixen]

Do you think people should be sacked for openly espousing that biological sex is real and immutable?

No, because you've yet to provide any examples of alleged hate speech somehow related to Forstater's case.

Agreed, with great influence comes great responsibility.

That said, where exactly did JKR fail at ethics?

As you know law statutes spell out exactly what the law covers so even if you are strongly opposed to say, veganism, you ought to know that you cannot cause detriment to your vegan work colleague by ridiculing or mocking their veganism or trying to prevent them from enjoying it. So imagine there is a transgender or transexual person in your workplace, you can be as cruel and as nasty as you like - you can call them names, you can refuse them promotion and you can sack them for being transgender because Forstater campaigned to make such discrimination a 'protected characteristic' for the person doing the hostile acts.

Think about it. A political belief, such as a belief in climate change, abortion or even transgender issues, should have nothing to do with Equality laws. In which way was Forstater discriminated against other than her bosses decided not to renew her contract because she claims they did not like her transphobic tweets.

Should the right to be transphobic really be a protected characteristic, or should it stay in the realms of political activism?

 

[d4m10n]

So imagine there is a transgender or transexual person in your workplace, you can be as cruel and as nasty as you like - you can call them names, you can refuse them promotion and you can sack them for being transgender...

This is not what what the decision actually says:

The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the [Equality Act].

You still haven't read the decision itself and you're just making **** up.

 

[Ziggurat]

The difference between myself and Rowling is that I am on a chat forum. She has put out a carefully crafted essay and published it as an advocacy - as she states - of Maya Forstater's views.

I didn't say it was good or bad.

I didn't ask whether it was good or bad. I asked how it was relevant. And I still don't have an answer from you. I still don't see why I should care about this difference.

However, for you to say that I am just as bad as her is ridiculous in this respect, for obvious reasons.

I didn't say that either. I said you also used appeals to emotion. Which you do. I'm not interested in whether you do it better or worse than she does.

 

[Francesca R]

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.

What did you mean then?

What did you mean when you said JK Rowling was acting the wounded innocent? That she was acting innocent, and that by implication she is not innocent but guilty? Guilty of what?

Or did you mean she was acting wounded, but not acting innocent, therefore she is innocent?

Which of these?

What did you mean when you said she was the agent provocateur of the brouhaha she herself whipped up in the first place? That she provoked the rape/violence/death threats she still receives and that it is she who is to blame for these threats? She brought the threats on herself? She deserves the threats?

If she is innocent, why does she deserve to receive hundreds of these threats? She would only deserve them if you thought she was guilty.

I believe the evidence shows that you meant exactly what I said you meant. That JK Rowling is guilty of provoking the specifics of the backlash she has experienced, that she is to blame for it, and that she therefore deserves it. Your statement is highly misogynistic in my view.

Others can make up their own minds.

 

[Aber]

Forstater managing to get 'a belief in biological sex' established as an additional protected characteristic means that if someone is anti-transgender in the workplace and that causes substantial distress or detriment to their target as a direct result of it, the person who 'believes in biological sex' cannot be punished as they are protected.

I suggest you go and read the judgement again; that is not an accurate representation.

 

[Paul2]

That is like a racist arguing with biologists that they are wrong to state that biologically there is no such thing as race.

Ironically, biologist Jerry Coyne says,

"The old conclusion from my boss Dick Lewontin that there is more variation within an ethnic group than between ethnic groups remains true. But there is enough genetic difference on average that, if you lump all the genes together, the small differences accumulate sufficiently to allow us to diagnose [predict] a person’s self-declared race. "

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022...cts-without-scientific-or-biological-meaning/

 

[Ziggurat]

Forstater managing to get 'a belief in biological sex' established as an additional protected characteristic means that if someone is anti-transgender in the workplace and that causes substantial distress or detriment to their target as a direct result of it, the person who 'believes in biological sex' cannot be punished as they are protected.

What exactly is "that"? What does being "anti-transgender" mean?

If it's just the fact that this person has a belief that sex is biological, then any transgender people at that work can suck it up or find a different job. The existence of such beliefs should not cause "substantial distress", and if it does, that person has their own mental health issues they need to solve. If someone's actions cause distress (for example, they harass a transgender person), then it's no longer a belief at issue, but actions, and the two are different. I don't think Muslim employees of a fast food restaurant are allowed to refuse to serve bacon to customers, for example. As far as I know, Forstater isn't accused of causing other employees "substantial distress" or otherwise harassing anyone.

tl;dr: I think you're being paranoid about the effects of that ruling.

 

[theprestige]

Indeed, if the expressed belief that sex is biological and binary causes someone significant distress, then they have a mental disorder, per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Rather than being dismissed as having a non-medical "valid lived condition", they should be diagnosed and treated for their disorder.

 

[Vixen]

This is not what what the decision actually says:

You still haven't read the decision itself and you're just making **** up.

The fact the judge had to put that caveat in the judgment simply underlines the contradictoriness of it all and the inherent absurdity and contrariness of holding a belief in biological sex to be legally protected.. What a judge writes in the written reasons does not actually do anything to affect the law. The case outcome OTOH has set a case precedent in law, which means that anyone in future who claims they were disciplined o suffered detriment for 'being transphobic' now has the legal right to sue under the terms of the Equality Act (to be revised). The fact the judge wrote that indicates he or she had spotted the irony.

 

[Vixen]

What did you mean then?

What did you mean when you said JK Rowling was acting the wounded innocent? That she was acting innocent, and that by implication she is not innocent but guilty? Guilty of what?

Or did you mean she was acting wounded, but not acting innocent, therefore she is innocent?

Which of these?

What did you mean when you said she was the agent provocateur of the brouhaha she herself whipped up in the first place? That she provoked the rape/violence/death threats she still receives and that it is she who is to blame for these threats? She brought the threats on herself? She deserves the threats?

If she is innocent, why does she deserve to receive hundreds of these threats? She would only deserve them if you thought she was guilty.

I believe the evidence shows that you meant exactly what I said you meant. That JK Rowling is guilty of provoking the specifics of the backlash she has experienced, that she is to blame for it, and that she therefore deserves it. Your statement is highly misogynistic in my view.

Others can make up their own minds.

She invited opprobrium did she not, so why the surprise she got opprobrium back? In Scotland, I believe that's called mitigation for 'fighting talk'. Go into a pub in Kilburn and rant about the Irish, then expect a few street fighters to give you a hiding.

As other posters have pointed out, someone saying she 'needs raping' is hardly actually on their way to rape and threats to kill are illegal so to make such a threat means you are breaking the law.

 

[Vixen]

What exactly is "that"? What does being "anti-transgender" mean?

If it's just the fact that this person has a belief that sex is biological, then any transgender people at that work can suck it up or find a different job. The existence of such beliefs should not cause "substantial distress", and if it does, that person has their own mental health issues they need to solve. If someone's actions cause distress (for example, they harass a transgender person), then it's no longer a belief at issue, but actions, and the two are different. I don't think Muslim employees of a fast food restaurant are allowed to refuse to serve bacon to customers, for example. As far as I know, Forstater isn't accused of causing other employees "substantial distress" or otherwise harassing anyone.

tl;dr: I think you're being paranoid about the effects of that ruling.

Exactly. You can't stop people from believing what they want to believe. It is when a person acts that it becomes a question of whether that act is legal or illegal.

Forstater has established that a simple belief in biological sex is enough to protect you in law against someone complaining of an act you performed whilst citing your 'belief in biological sex'.

 

[theprestige]

She invited opprobrium did she not, so why the surprise she got opprobrium back?

Nobody is surprised she got opprobrium back. The existence of misogynistic trolls ready to take to their keyboards in defense of trans orthodoxy, with violent and hateful messages, comes as a surprise to literally no-one.

Except you, perhaps? Were you surprised to learn that trans-activism is full of these types?

 

[Vixen]

Indeed, if the expressed belief that sex is biological and binary causes someone significant distress, then they have a mental disorder, per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Rather than being dismissed as having a non-medical "valid lived condition", they should be diagnosed and treated for their disorder.

Do you think a person should be allowed to act on their 'belief in biological sex' if it causes distress or detriment to a work colleague or customer? Perhaps a sign saying 'No transgenders or transexual served here'? Because that in effect is what the UK Attorney General is protecting. You have an employee who spends their spare time tweeting transphobic messages on social media. You decline to renew their fixed-term contract. Whoa! You are the one breaking the law, not the wayward employee spreading hate.