Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Thinking that other, less drastic, options should at least be explored before resorting to treating physically healthy children with powerful drugs with known serious side effects is not transphobia.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Thinking that other, less drastic, options should at least be explored before resorting to treating physically healthy children with powerful drugs with known serious side effects is not transphobia.
No, gender-critical views are protected because they are not transphobia. The Metanoia knows it would not win because it cannot rely on the strategy of branding disagreement as transphobia that had worked so well until recently.
Not quite - it could be protected speech and also be transphobia. People can have many terrible in my eyes beliefs - for example that homosexuals should suffer everlasting torment or be imprisoned for life and people may express those beliefs and those beliefs may be protected speech, but it wouldn't stop those beliefs also being homophobic.
There is a difference between legal speech (the government cannot punish you for the beliefs/speech) and protection under the Equality Act 2010 (you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of holding and expressing a belief).
What you describe is unlikely to be protected under the EA.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Samson said:
We know why. The class of "transwomen" who are autogynaephiles, which is most of them, are not in this simply to play sport, they are in it to a large extent to validate their sexual fetish of wanting to be in all women's spaces and to be treated as if they were women with no exceptions. Offering them spaces of their own such as gender neutral toilets (in addition to normal male and female toilets) or open or non-binary sports events is not welcome because they see this as an attempt to exclude them from where they want to be, which is in the female toilets or the female events (and the female changing rooms that go with them).
Some sporting bodies have introduced trans and non-binary classes, and nobody entered. I think it was swimming. They gave up because it was pointless. The overwhelming desire is to impose themselves on women.
"Emily" Bridges has been all over the press lamenting that his sporting days are over now that he is no longer allowed to compete in (and dominate) the women's events. But after he had transitioned, but before he had achieved eligibility for women's cycling events, he was competing quite successfully in the men's events, and nobody was being mean to him there or excluding him. There's no reason he couldn't go back, except that he wants to be in womens's spaces, and he likes races he can win without breaking sweat.
Women's sports are not a consolation prize for third-rate men, and women's intimate spaces are not a refuge for men with sexual perversions who would prefer not to be in the men's spaces where they belong.
Last edited:
Yes all of above.
I saw my brother as autogynephile in 2000 without understanding then.
He was 48.
Now we know that Bruce Jenner and Richard Levine are spoiling the discourse.
It is beyond reprehensible, it is completely evil.
Late onset gender dysphoria is a nonsense where people might also regret they are not billionaires.
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation is a more cogent statement.
I saw my brother as autogynephile in 2000 without understanding then.
He was 48.
Now we know that Bruce Jenner and Richard Levine are spoiling the discourse.
It is beyond reprehensible, it is completely evil.
Late onset gender dysphoria is a nonsense where people might also regret they are not billionaires.
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation is a more cogent statement.
Sall Grover, The Women's Rights Party who I belong to, and other serious groups submitted to the Law Commission headed by Claudia Geiringer.
Let us see if the completely fake concept of gender gets embedded in New Zealand law so autogynephiles can rule the roost.
Let us see if the completely fake concept of gender gets embedded in New Zealand law so autogynephiles can rule the roost.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
If a clergyman in the UK says "Sodomy is an abominable crime against nature and a grave sin against God according to Romans chapter one!" is that protected speech over there?
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Yes, it is.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Profoundly homophobic speech is protected under the Equality Act? I must say that is surprising, although I've no real intuitions about the legal system on that side of the pond (beyond the common law that every 1L has to imbibe for criminal and torts courses) so I can be fairly easily surprised.
I doubt you can find any transactivist organization who would agree with you on this, and they are the primary popularizers of that term as a means to drive social norms and public policy.
I doubt you can find any transactivist organization who would agree with you on this, and they are the primary popularizers of that term as a means to drive social norms and public policy.
I suppose we can come up with our own bespoke meaning of "transphobia" just for the sake of this thread but it won't prove useful when discussing these issues with the sort of folks who wield that term for their own ends.
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
We have a thing called freedom of speech in the UK. We also have freedom of belief, and freedom of expression. People are entitled to believe what they like, and to say what they believe. This is quite normal in democracies. What is it about this that you find surprising?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
I am well aware that TRAs label anyone who disagrees with them about anything as transphobic, that doesn't mean that everyone else is obliged to go along with that.
Transphobia means fear of trans people. Holding the opinion that children presenting with what might be gender dysphoria should be fully and properly assessed before the most appropriate treatment (which might well turn out to be puberty blockers) is prescribed is not transphobia.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I consider it to be an observable, scientific reality that in humans, there are only two biological sexes. Those sexes are male and female. My view is that this is objective reality. Now, a serious question, and I want a direct answer with no equivocation and no waffle.
Do you think this belief is transphobic?
I am 100% certain that christian beliefs would fall under the EA and be classed as protected speech.
Yep, it would be be protected under article 10 of the 1998 Human Rights act “freedom of expression” and the equality act - sincerely held belief system.
This strand of discussion is about what is protected under the EA. My comments are pointing out that that just because beliefs fall under protected speech by the EA doesn’t mean it isn’t “phobic”, whether that be transphobia, homophobia, islamophobia and so on. Article 9 is not concerned about the truth etc. of the belief “… belief means any religious or philosophical belief’ …”
To quote:
Your belief would be protected under the EA, which is what Elaedith‘s post was about.
And no I don’t consider your belief to be transphobic.
No it doesn’t mean what the literal root words mean just as homophobia doesn’t simply mean a fear of homosexuals, transphobia means something along the lines of a hatred, strong dislike, or prejudice against trans folk.
Louden Wilde
Muse
While that's certainly true for homophobia, there's difference with transphobia that gets to the false promise at the center of the movement. That is, activists suggest that treating a trans-woman differently than a regular woman is transphobic, and that the most folks can/will get over their 'bigotry' and accept TW as W. This premise ignores that sexual attraction is hard-wired and that the driving force underlying that drive is reproduction. Put another way: where it counts most - long-term (sexual/romantic) relationships - selection will ensure that transwomen will never be seen as women.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
The part where citizens are interviewed by the police for saying what they believe about transgender issues.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
And I might add
"Caroline Farrow said Surrey Police wants to "conduct a taped interview under caution" because of tweets posted in October."
"Interviewed under caution". That means the Police are looking at you as a suspect they are thinking about charging rather than as just a witness as part of an investigation. Its the equivalent of being read your Miranda rights in the US.
Last edited: