• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
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'.
Click to expand...

What exactly was this act she performed? And was she protected against someone complaining, or was she protected against actions?

You seem to be playing very loose with the distinctions between actions, speech, and beliefs.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you. I think you're making this up. I don't think this is at all what's being protected.

You have an employee who spends their spare time tweeting transphobic messages on social media.
Click to expand...

Their spare time. On social media.

That's not on the employer's time, that's not on their premises. That's fundamentally different than on the employer's time and on their premises, which is what your claim about a 'No transgenders or transexual served here' sign would be.

Do you really think the courts cannot or will not make this distinction? That makes no sense at all.

And that's not even touching the fact that your characterization of "transphobic" is itself up for debate.
 
Vixen said:
She invited opprobrium did she not
Click to expand...
Did she invite anyone to threaten to rape, beat or kill her? Provide evidence that she did.

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.
Click to expand...
Is it a misogynistic act to threaten to rape someone?

It seems that you do not think so. You are on record as saying it is a childish giggle. Do you stand by that?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
What exactly was this act she performed? And was she protected against someone complaining, or was she protected against actions?

You seem to be playing very loose with the distinctions between actions, speech, and beliefs.
Click to expand...

Forstater spent her evenings in her own leisure time tweeting transphobic tweets. When her contract was not renewed, she tried to sue under the Equality Act that protects certain types of characteristics, such as age, race, sex, disability, religious belief, etcetera. Judge Tayler threw it out.

A crowdfunded campaign saw her win an appeal and win her case.

So now Attorney General Braverman is going to tweak the law so that persons who 'believe in biological sex' cannot be touched.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't believe you. I think you're making this up. I don't think this is at all what's being protected.



Their spare time. On social media.

That's not on the employer's time, that's not on their premises. That's fundamentally different than on the employer's time and on their premises, which is what your claim about a 'No transgenders or transexual served here' sign would be.

Do you really think the courts cannot or will not make this distinction? That makes no sense at all.

And that's not even touching the fact that your characterization of "transphobic" is itself up for debate.
Click to expand...

If you are on a fixed-term contract and the fixed term expires, your boss does not need any reason to not renew your contract.

It is Forstater who argued that her contract was not renewed because of discrimination against a TERF.
 
Vixen said:
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?
Click to expand...

It depends on the act. Expressing a belief is fine. Harassing a person is not fine. But harassment is easily distinguishable from simply expressing opinions that some people find distasteful.
 
Vixen said:
The fact the judge wrote that indicates he or she had spotted the irony.
Click to expand...
The judge was making it clear that the sort of nightmare scenarios you've envisioned here remain illegal under existing law, so as to spare people (like yourself) from catastrophising about the ruling, as you've been doing. If you're going to criticise the ruling, it would be best to quote the specific bits which you're worried about instead of making up fanciful scenarios which the ruling explicitly does not condone.

Vixen said:
If you are on a fixed-term contract and the fixed term expires, your boss does not need any reason to not renew your contract.
Click to expand...
And yet the boss would still be liable if they had stated in private correspondence that they did not renew because the employee was Catholic. Speaking as a former Catholic, I find their entire belief system risible (and occasionally tragical) but it's still a good thing that the UK wouldn't let any boss fail to renew a contract on such grounds.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Forstater spent her evenings in her own leisure time tweeting transphobic tweets.
Click to expand...

So she engaged in speech outside of work, speech which you characterize as "transphobic" because... it proclaims that biological sex is real.

The horror. The horror.

So now Attorney General Braverman is going to tweak the law so that persons who 'believe in biological sex' cannot be touched.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that because her tweeting was protected, everything else she might do is also protected. That's... stupid.
 
Francesca R said:
Did she invite anyone to threaten to rape, beat or kill her? Provide evidence that she did.

Is it a misogynistic act to threaten to rape someone?

It seems that you do not think so. You are on record as saying it is a childish giggle. Do you stand by that?
Click to expand...

Watch my lips: sending obscene of violent messages on social media is wrong.
 
Vixen said:
Forstater spent her evenings in her own leisure time tweeting transphobic tweets. When her contract was not renewed, she tried to sue under the Equality Act that protects certain types of characteristics, such as age, race, sex, disability, religious belief, etcetera. Judge Tayler threw it out.

A crowdfunded campaign saw her win an appeal and win her case.

So now Attorney General Braverman is going to tweak the law so that persons who 'believe in biological sex' cannot be touched.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with believing in biological sex? What's transphobic about asserting that biological sex is binary and immutable in humans? These things are scientific facts. Why shouldn't belief in scientific facts be protected?
 
Vixen said:
Watch my lips: sending obscene of violent messages on social media is wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know it's wrong. That's the whole point: The trans-activist lobby is full of hateful scumbags who do obviously wrong things in defense of their ideology. Stop trying to blame Forstater, Rowling, et al. for the wrong things being done to them by hateful scumbags who don't like their opinions.
 
theprestige said:
What's wrong with believing in biological sex? What's transphobic about asserting that biological sex is binary and immutable in humans? These things are scientific facts. Why shouldn't belief in scientific facts be protected?
Click to expand...

Because we all have a thousand and one beliefs. The Equality Act is designed to protect people persecuted for their religious belief or genuine life style (such as a vegan). A belief in biological sex is not a life style. So, if I was on a fixed term contract and it was coming to the end, should I be able to sue my bosses because the unrenewed contract coincides with my tweeting my belief on some political issue of the day?
 
d4m10n said:
The judge was making it clear that the sort of nightmare scenarios you've envisioned here remain illegal under existing law, so as to spare people (like yourself) from catastrophising about the ruling, as you've been doing. If you're going to criticise the ruling, it would be best to quote the specific bits which you're worried about instead of making up fanciful scenarios which the ruling explicitly does not condone.

And yet the boss would still be liable if they had stated in private correspondence that they did not renew because the employee was Catholic. Speaking as a former Catholic, I find their entire belief system risible (and occasionally tragical) but it's still a good thing that the UK wouldn't let any boss fail to renew a contract on such grounds.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what the Equality Act is designed for. To protect people from vindictive acts because of their protected personal characteristics, which can be age, race, sex, disability, religion, creed, nationality, sexual orientation.

A belief in evolution, biological sex or the Magna Carta is hardly of the same spirit.
 
Vixen said:
A belief in evolution, biological sex or the Magna Carta is hardly of the same spirit.
Click to expand...
Agreed! Belief in evolution and biological sex are much more evidence-based than the ridiculous beliefs already protected under the heading of religion.
 
Last edited:
Well it's certainly no surprise to me that the trans-activist lobby opposes the principle that people should be free to express support for science, and make policy arguments that are based on science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom