Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Vixen]

Is it misogynistic to threaten somebody with rape?

Or just childish giggles?

Do you have any idea what you post here?

For crying out loud! How many times do I have to say the type of people making this type comment are complete and utter morons.

JK Rowling is still alive and intact, is she not? So the would-be killers and rapists weren't on their way after all. Just report them to the police on her behalf and/or report it to Twitter. Or just block them. Sheee-eeesh!

 

[Francesca R]

Oh look you didn't answer again.

If you thought it was misogynistic to make threats of rape I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't say so.

I conclude you think it is not a misogynistic act. Just childish giggles uttered by morons

 

[Vixen]

Oh look you didn't answer again.

If you thought it was misogynistic to make threats of rape I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't say so.

I conclude you think it is not a misogynistic act. Just childish giggles uttered by morons

I can't look into the mind of someone who writes stupid messages on social media. How do you even know who they are?


Just assume they are morons and do what everybody else does. Report them and block them.

 

[Elaedith]

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.

You are correct. Nobody has made a medical or scientific study of the validity of transgender identity. In fact, if somebody uses the term 'validity of transgender identity', that is enough to know that their position is not based on science. Science-oriented researchers and clinicians do not use terms such as 'validity' unless they are talking about scientific validity. As Dr Cantor said in a quote I posted earlier, 'validity' in a scientific sense means something is objectively measurable and falsifiable. Not only is 'gender identity' currently not either of these things, those promoting gender identity ideology are attracted by the fact that the concept is unfalsifiable (people who promote pseudoscience are attracted by ideas that are unfalsifiable because it means that they can't be shown to be wrong, which they think is a virtue). You do not hear the term 'validity of identity' in any science-based area of medicine or clinical psychology. The use of such terms is a sign of subordination of science to ideology.

 

[d4m10n]

Just assume they are morons and do what everybody else does.

Molly Norris^WP has left the chat.

 

[Elaedith]

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.

Philosophical belief is a protected characteristic in the UK Equality Act, not just religious belief. All philosophical beliefs that meet tests (such as being worthy of respect in a democratic society) are protected. If a belief is protected, then the corresponding lack of belief is also protected. That means that if a belief that gender identity should replace biological sex in law and policy is protected, that alternate belief that biological sex trumps gender identity is some areas of law and policy is also protected. Either both are or neither is (in which case you could be fired for saying that you think TWAW).

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 case established that gender critical beliefs are protected philosophical beliefs, meaning you cannot be harassed or discriminated against for holding and expressing them. The right to hold and express a belief does not give anyone the right to harass or discriminate against anyone else. The only person who has discriminated against in this case was Forstater (by her nasty, arrogant, intolerant, bigoted, colleagues, who tried to create a hostile work environment and get her dismissed on the basis of her protected beliefs, while taking their own right to express their philosophical views on sex and gender for granted).

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.

This is utter nonsense. Believing that biological sex is relevant in some contexts and cannot be replaced by gender identity is not 'expressing hatred' of anyone.

 

[theprestige]

So I think I've finally figured out where LJ is trying to bring us, with his observation that transgender identity is no longer considered a mental disorder.

Apologies if this is already obvious to everyone else.

At first I thought he was attempting some bizarre sophistry to deny that gender dysphoria is actually in the APA's manual of mental disorders. But now I understand it differently: He's saying that transgender identity on its own, without any accompanying distress, does not rise to the level of a disorder, as recognized by the APA.

And in fact I am inclined to agree with that viewpoint. I think that's fine, as far as it goes. I just don't think it goes very far.

For example, in that view, the controversies over "gender affirming care", and "gender affirming surgery", are completely unnecessary. People asserting transgender identities without any accompanying distress are not in need of medical care. They are not in need of surgery. They are not suffering from any kind of condition that needs treatment. Precisely because they are not suffering. The controversies are unnecessary because the care itself is unnecessary.

But of course the care is necessary, because LJ and others are equivocating. They want to have it both ways. They want transgender identity to have all the privileges and entitlements of a medical condition: The humanitarian accommodations in public policy. The urgent need for medical support as early as possible in the patient's life. The absolute taboo against any kind of "ableist" reaction from cisnormative people. We don't generally point and laugh at furries because it's rude. We are not allowed to point and laugh at cross-dressers, because they suffer from a mental disorder and deserve our sympathy and support.

Except, as LJ keeps reminding us, transgender identity is not actually a mental disorder. It requires no diagnosis and no treatment. Anyone can claim it for themselves at any time. And again, that's fine, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go as far as the trans lobby needs it to go. They need it to go as far as entitling the claimant to all the privileges associated with an actual disability. Actually recognizing it as a disability, though, would be going too far.

So again it boils down to the same old gordian knot, and the same old butter knife cutting through it: If you claim a transgender identity without any accompanying distress, nothing special is needed in public policy. You'll be happy enough expressing that identity wherever and whenever it's tolerated, and happy enough setting it to the side whenever you need access to a sex-segregated space.

On the other hand, if you do experience severe distress from the prospect of having to compete with your own sex cohort in sports, or be housed with your own sex cohort in prisons, or from any form of cisnormative gender expression (whatever that means to you personally), then you have a mental disorder. And in that case, what is needed in public policy is recognition of your mental disorder, and accessible health care for that disorder. You don't need public policy to enable and normalize your delusion, or tell you the distress you're feeling arises from a "valid lived condition".

 

[Graham2001]

What everybody seems to forget is that 'Trans-Ideology' is not simply hostle to females. Gays and Lesbians are having problems with it as well.


Lesbians for example are not entirely happy about being forced to have sex with 'lesbians with penises' as noted in my favourite 'broken clock' (Spiked!)

There are few sights more joyous than that of bolshy lesbians celebrating how few ***** they have left to give. And such scenes were in abundance on Saturday at Pride Cymru in Cardiff, Wales’ biggest LGBT parade, which was joined by the lesbians of the ‘Get the L Out’ (GTLO) campaign. The GTLO banners might have seemed baffling to the uninitiated – with slogans such as ‘lesbians don’t like penises’, ‘trans activism erases lesbians’ and ‘lesbian not queer’ – but they speak to a profound rift that has emerged in the so-called LGBT movement.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/08/28/pride-cymru-and-the-rise-of-woke-homophobia/

 

[Puppycow]

For example, in that view, the controversies over "gender affirming care", and "gender affirming surgery", are completely unnecessary. People asserting transgender identities without any accompanying distress are not in need of medical care. They are not in need of surgery. They are not suffering from any kind of condition that needs treatment. Precisely because they are not suffering. The controversies are unnecessary because the care itself is unnecessary.

I'm concerned that taxpayers, or health insurance providers, are in many cases being forced to pay for this kind of medical intervention. If it isn't a "disorder" then isn't it merely elective, like a facelift or a boob job?

Iowa’s Supreme Court justices mandated that Medicaid must pay for gender-change surgeries. The Iowa Civil Rights Act, as amended in 2007, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of housing, employment, education, credit practices and public accommodations. But the justices over-reached by holding that elective, cosmetic, gender-altering procedures are an entitlement, and required by that law’s public accommodations clause.

Unlike extending the same rights to same-sex couples, which costs the taxpayer nothing, or at most, no more than it costs to recognize traditional marriages, when you say that expensive care like this should be funded by the taxpayer, it imposes a cost on everyone else.

 

[Vixen]

Philosophical belief is a protected characteristic in the UK Equality Act, not just religious belief. All philosophical beliefs that meet tests (such as being worthy of respect in a democratic society) are protected. If a belief is protected, then the corresponding lack of belief is also protected. That means that if a belief that gender identity should replace biological sex in law and policy is protected, that alternate belief that biological sex trumps gender identity is some areas of law and policy is also protected. Either both are or neither is (in which case you could be fired for saying that you think TWAW).

The case established that gender critical beliefs are protected philosophical beliefs, meaning you cannot be harassed or discriminated against for holding and expressing them. The right to hold and express a belief does not give anyone the right to harass or discriminate against anyone else. The only person who has discriminated against in this case was Forstater (by her nasty, arrogant, intolerant, bigoted, colleagues, who tried to create a hostile work environment and get her dismissed on the basis of her protected beliefs, while taking their own right to express their philosophical views on sex and gender for granted).

This is utter nonsense. Believing that biological sex is relevant in some contexts and cannot be replaced by gender identity is not 'expressing hatred' of anyone.

As I said before, people are entitled to believe whatever they like IMV. However, the idea that Transgender Exclusionary Radical Feminism is a Philosophical Belief that fits a 'protected characteristic' under the Equality Act or Bill of Rights strikes me as bunkum. What about the two hundred and one other shades of 'radical feminism'? Are they all 'protected characteristics' as well?

 

[Vixen]

Then you have no idea what's being protected, or if it's even "transphobic".

I had never heard of Forstater until a few days ago when her name was brought to my attention by another poster, together with the wikipedia page. Why would I be familiar with someone I had never heard of until now?

 

[Vixen]

What everybody seems to forget is that 'Trans-Ideology' is not simply hostle to females. Gays and Lesbians are having problems with it as well.


Lesbians for example are not entirely happy about being forced to have sex with 'lesbians with penises' as noted in my favourite 'broken clock' (Spiked!)






https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/08/28/pride-cymru-and-the-rise-of-woke-homophobia/

Not wishing to be crude but would these be the same lesbians who are sometimes known to use <ahem> prosthetics, as it were?

 

[lionking]

I had never heard of Forstater until a few days ago when her name was brought to my attention by another poster, together with the wikipedia page. Why would I be familiar with someone I had never heard of until now?

It’s been covered in the thread you are participating in.

 

[Elaedith]

As I said before, people are entitled to believe whatever they like IMV. However, the idea that Transgender Exclusionary Radical Feminism is a Philosophical Belief that fits a 'protected characteristic' under the Equality Act or Bill of Rights strikes me as bunkum. What about the two hundred and one other shades of 'radical feminism'? Are they all 'protected characteristics' as well?

Yes, if they meet the requirements of a protected philosophical beliefs.

I think you don't understand the principle. Compare this with religion. It doesn't matter how many religions there are; they are all protected as long as they meet the requirements of being a religion. You don't have to list every religion as a separate protected characteristic. Just don't discriminate on the basis of a belief (or lack of belief) that has no relevance to somebody's job.

ETA: And it's not 'trans exclusionary radical feminism' that is protected (especially since the term makes no sense). It is gender critical beliefs, perhaps more aptly described as gender atheism, or lack of belief in gender identity ideology.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, if they meet the requirements of a protected philosophical beliefs.

I think you don't understand the principle. Compare this with religion. It doesn't matter how many religions there are; they are all protected as long as they meet the requirements of being a religion. You don't have to list every religion as a separate protected characteristic. Just don't discriminate on the basis of a belief (or lack of belief) that has no relevance to somebody's job.

ETA: And it's not 'trans exclusionary radical feminism' that is protected (especially since the term makes no sense). It is gender critical beliefs, perhaps more aptly described as gender atheism, or lack of belief in gender identity ideology.

But isn't being against something the very essence of reactionary? So someone who is against people in wheelchairs, say, or Catholics, should have the same 'protected characteristic' as the disabled and those of a creed?

 

[Darat]

Yes, if they meet the requirements of a protected philosophical beliefs.

...snip...

But isn't being against something the very essence of reactionary? So someone who is against people in wheelchairs, say, or Catholics, should have the same 'protected characteristic' as the disabled and those of a creed?

Protected characteristics under the Equality act are:

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

Under religion or belief the act is worded as "Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief."

The courts have decided the test of a "philosophical belief" is broad for instance it covers someone who is a vegan. And recently certain views on matters such as transexuals have been accepted by the court to be a valid "philosophical belief".

The explanatory notes for a philosophical belief are:

"The criteria for determining what is a “philosophical belief” are that it must be genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. So, for example, any cult involved in illegal activities would not satisfy these criteria. The section provides that people who are of the same religion or belief share the protected characteristic of religion or belief. Depending on the context, this could mean people who, for example, share the characteristic of being Protestant or people who share the characteristic of being Christian."​

Note the law and courts are not concerned with any factual bases for a philosophical belief the same way they are not concerned with any factual bases for a religious belief. A court deciding that a particular belief is a philosophical belief is not passing any judgment on the validity of the belief.

 

[Vixen]

Protected characteristics under the Equality act are:

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

Under religion or belief the act is worded as "Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief."

The courts have decided the test of a "philosophical belief" is broad for instance it covers someone who is a vegan. And recently certain views on matters such as transexuals have been accepted by the court to be a valid "philosophical belief".

The explanatory notes for a philosophical belief are:

"The criteria for determining what is a “philosophical belief” are that it must be genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. So, for example, any cult involved in illegal activities would not satisfy these criteria. The section provides that people who are of the same religion or belief share the protected characteristic of religion or belief. Depending on the context, this could mean people who, for example, share the characteristic of being Protestant or people who share the characteristic of being Christian."​

Note the law and courts are not concerned with any factual bases for a philosophical belief the same way they are not concerned with any factual bases for a religious belief. A court deciding that a particular belief is a philosophical belief is not passing any judgment on the validity of the belief.

Therein lies the crux of the matter. I believe Judge Tayler, who is an expert in this field, got his interpretation of the law absolutely right the first time round, and the fact Attorney General Braverman has to rewrite this particular law, indicates to me that this was a case precedent that should have gone to the Supreme Court for proper consideration. As it is, from here, it just looks like the subsequent Forstater rehearing may well just have gone along on the tide of pressure groups and crowdfunding. And let's face it, it was an orchestrated political campaign.

It is no surprise therefore that controversy remains vis-a-vis JK Rowling and cohorts.

 

[Elaedith]

But isn't being against something the very essence of reactionary? So someone who is against people in wheelchairs, say, or Catholics, should have the same 'protected characteristic' as the disabled and those of a creed?

You seem to have a problem distinguishing being critical of an idea or belief and discriminating against people.

Being critical of Catholicism is not 'reactionary' and could be protected as part of a belief system. Discriminating against or harassing people for being Catholic would be a reason for disciplinary action in the workplace.

 

[Vixen]

You seem to have a problem distinguishing being critical of an idea or belief and discriminating against people.

Being critical of Catholicism is not 'reactionary' and could be protected as part of a belief system. Discriminating against or harassing people for being Catholic would be a reason for disciplinary action in the workplace.

This is not just a passive belief though, is? It affects your transgender/transexual work colleague who when confronted at the Ladies or Gents toilets is told, 'You can't come in here' and there is nothing he or she can do about it. How is that different from stopping women at the door of the boardroom and saying, men only?

 

[Darat]

This is not just a passive belief though, is? It affects your transgender/transexual work colleague who when confronted at the Ladies or Gents toilets is told, 'You can't come in here' and there is nothing he or she can do about it. How is that different from stopping women at the door of the boardroom and saying, men only?

It has to be a "passive" belief in the sense you are using it as gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the Equality act so any one doing the above would be in breach of the Equality act.