Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Elaedith]

Please provide recent examples of this happening.

Of what happening?

Citation, please, for the highlighted.

https://reduxx.info/uk-met-police-r...tivist-who-called-for-violence-against-women/

And, again, do you have any recent examples of people being harassed or investigated for expressing gender critical views?

I haven't been keeping up with this lately, but I understand Maya Forstater has just been referred to CPS after a 9 month investigation over some tweet related to the opinion that it is a violation of consent for women who request intimate examinations be performed by a female doctor to have them performed by a doctor who is a transwoman.

 

[d4m10n]

Did I mean to target a member of the transgender community, the police asked me. Did I understand that my tweet could be perceived as transphobic? Did I have any remorse? “Do you have any evidence that Dr Kamarudding examines her patient without consent?” the officer demanded.

https://unherd.com/newsroom/why-is-the-met-police-investigating-me-for-a-tweet-about-a-trans-doctor/

 

[Pixel42]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07ev1v7r4po

A transgender woman from Australia has won a discrimination case against a women-only social media app, after she was denied access on the basis of being male.

The Federal Court found that although Roxanne Tickle had not been directly discriminated against, she was a victim of indirect discrimination - which refers to when a decision disadvantages a person with a particular attribute - and ordered the app to pay her A$10,000 ($6,700; £5,100) plus costs.

Giggle’s legal team argued throughout the case that sex is a biological concept.

They freely concede that Tickle was discriminated against - but on the grounds of sex, rather than gender identity. Refusing to allow Tickle to use the app constituted lawful sex discrimination, they say. The app is designed to exclude men, and because its founder perceives Tickle to be male - she argues that denying her access to the app was lawful.

But Justice Robert Bromwich said in his decision on Friday that case law has consistently found sex is “changeable and not necessarily binary”, ultimately dismissing Giggle’s argument.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Of what happening?

Of the police harassing people for having gender critical views.

https://reduxx.info/uk-met-police-r...tivist-who-called-for-violence-against-women/

At 8 July 2023 London Trans+ Pride Parade, Baker gave a speech to the crowd where she said "if you see a TERF, punch them in the ******* face", a statement that was videotaped and widely distributed. Asked for their reaction, London Trans+ Pride organisers said that, "We do not condone violence. We do not back a call to arms for violence of any kind. We do condone righteous anger." Baker's speech was reported to Metropolitan Police, who initially stated that the call to violence was hypothetical, but after investigating arrested her on 12 July for incitement to violence. According to the terms of her parole, she was recalled to prison pending her trial, specifically to HMP Wandsworth, a men's prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Jane_Baker#Re-imprisonment

So the police did arrest him/her/it. Yes, it took too long, but it was done.

I haven't been keeping up with this lately, but I understand Maya Forstater has just been referred to CPS after a 9 month investigation over some tweet related to the opinion that it is a violation of consent for women who request intimate examinations be performed by a female doctor to have them performed by a doctor who is a transwoman.

Maya Forstater is a British business studies and international development researcher who was the claimant in Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe. The case established that gender critical views are protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010,while stating that the judgment does not permit misgendering transgender people with impunity. At a subsequent full merits hearing, the Employment Tribunal upheld Forstater's case, concluding that she had suffered direct discrimination on the basis of her gender critical beliefs.In a judgement for remedies handed down in June 2023, Forstater was awarded compensation of £91,500 for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and aggravated damages, with an additional £14,900 added as interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Forstater

Perhaps you should have kept up with the case, as Forstater won damages.

All of this, I think, proves my point. TRAs are trying to shut down free speech, and failing.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Where did you get the highlighted part from?

Difficult to scream abuse at someone unless you're following them, I would have thought.
In any case, is that the only part of this you're going to pick up on? How about the main point, which was about how I couldn't find any cases of anyone being successfully prosecuted for gender critical beliefs? Are you just going to ignore that, because it's inconvenient? How about responding to my questions about whether this kind of behaviour is acceptable in America, or is that going to be swept under the carpet too?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07ev1v7r4po

Australia takes a step backwards.
Although, I must say, 'Giggle vs Tickle' is a truly awesome name for a court case!

 

[Cosmic Yak]

https://unherd.com/newsroom/why-is-the-met-police-investigating-me-for-a-tweet-about-a-trans-doctor/

"Police in 'investigating possible crime' shocker."
It certainly looks like she hasn't done anything wrong, and no, she should not be under investigation. However, it remains a fact that the police are obliged to investigate possible crimes. Heavy-handed? Yes, absolutely? Am I defending this action? No, I am not. Am I defending the British police in general? No, I am not. Are there mistakes and injustices, in every country in the world? Of course. Does this mean that there is a trend in the UK for the state to shut down gender critical speech, or create an offence of 'thought crime'. No, it does not.

 

[Elaedith]

Of the police harassing people for having gender critical views.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Jane_Baker#Re-imprisonment

So the police did arrest him/her/it. Yes, it took too long, but it was done.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Forstater

Perhaps you should have kept up with the case, as Forstater won damages.

All of this, I think, proves my point. TRAs are trying to shut down free speech, and failing.

You need to pay attention. This is a new case happening now and the police have just referred it to CPS. It is very clear that you know nothing at all about these issues and are making it up as you go along.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You need to pay attention. This is a new case happening now and the police has just referred it to CPS. It is very clear that you know nothing at all about these issues and are making it up as you go along.

Now you're just being rude.

 

[smartcooky]

Its worth noting that there has been a considerable shift in position on this. Stonewall, one of the most hard-core pro LGBTQ advocates, a charity that was at the forefront of the drive to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of expression, used to hold the following officially stated position on these issues -

Being insulted, pestered, intimidated or harassed is a hate crime. Their top three hate crimes against trans people were “invasive questioning”, “deadnaming” and “verbal abuse” ​

As recently as 2022, they confirmed this position in court. Stonewall staff reported barrister Allison Bailey to her chambers, Garden Court, for "misgendering". During Baily's ensuing employment tribunal, Stonewall’s head of trans inclusion, Kirrin Medcalf, confirmed that Stonewall’s position was that “misgendering” is “inherently transphobic”.

From the transcript of the cross-examination -

BC is Ben Cooper QC, Bailey’s barrister
KM is Kirrin Medcalf of Stnewall

BC: Misgendering is inherently transphobic?
KM: Yes
BC: In any circumstances?
KM: Yes, unless that transperson as an individual has asked you to do so, to refer to them as men for their own safety.
BC: Is that Stonewall's position?
KM: Yes​

It is absolutely indisputable that, at that time, Stonewall regarded misgendering as a hate crime and therefore a criminal offense.

But now, they have changed their tune. In April of this year, they released a statement in response to the public outcry over the Hamzi Yusef's Scottish hate crime laws.

"The PM, and high-profile commentators, are incorrect when they suggest that misgendering or ‘stating facts on biology’ would be criminalised. This is no more true than stating that the existing law has criminalised the criticism of religion. This kind of misrepresentation about the Act and its purpose only serves to trivialise the violence committed against us in the name of hate."

That is a COLOSSAL backpedal. If I thought for a moment that their reasons were because they have had a change of heart, I would commend them for it.... but I will not. They have backpedaled all the wrong reasons. They have done so mostly because of the ****-storm this position risked bringing down on them. They are a charity, and face the prospect of their funding drying up if they didn't distance themselves from their previous position.

Now, while the position has changed, it hasn't changed enough for my liking. Freedom of Speech is the core tenet of a free and fair society. The UK, New Zealand and Australia need to have laws similar to the US, with Freedom of Speech being near absolute, and with only very few exceptions, such as incitement to violence (what the US calls "fighting words" - "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.").

There should be no mention of individual groups in laws protecting freedom of speech. If Free Speech laws don't protect everyone's rights, and the exceptions don't protect everyone from incited violence, then they are both useless and meaningless.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Now, while the position has changed, it hasn't changed enough for my liking. Freedom of Speech is the core tenet of a free and fair society. The UK, New Zealand and Australia need to have laws similar to the US, with Freedom of Speech being near absolute, and with only very few exceptions, such as incitement to violence (what the US calls "fighting words" - "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.").

There should be no mention of individual groups in laws protecting freedom of speech. If Free Speech laws don't protect everyone's rights, and the exceptions don't protect everyone from incited violence, then they are both useless and meaningless.

Most of the time, in most of the threads on this forum, I like what you say, and I agree with you. This time, though, I can't say the same.
Firstly, would you say that the US is a 'free and fair society'? Because I wouldn't. The entrenched inequality and racism in that country appears to me to be far, far worse than in the UK or NZ. (Australia always surprises me with its levels of racism, so that one's an exception.) I don't see that absolute free speech there has made that country a better place for minorities at all.
Also, limits on free speech should not just focus on incitement to violence. Consider libel; doxxing; cyber-bullying; fraud, and abuse. By the latter, I mean I don't think it's acceptable to make someone's life a misery by showering them with insults and abusive language, or discriminating against them, based on their race, sex, sexual orientation or ethnicity. If there is no recourse to the law to prevent such things, then I would argue that the state is failing in its duty to protect these minorities. I've mentioned before about the fine line between expressing a sincerely-held belief, and targetting minorities out of hatred and intolerance. This latter happens in the US all the time, and it has led to a fractured and hate-filled society. You can see that in microcosm on this very forum. I don't think this is an example that the UK or NZ should emulate.

 

[d4m10n]

Difficult to scream abuse at someone unless you're following them, I would have thought.

We clearly haven't lived in the same cities.

How about the main point, which was about how I couldn't find any cases of anyone being successfully prosecuted for gender critical beliefs?

It has already been noted that prosecution doesn't need to be successful at obtaining convictions in order to be successful at chilling marginal viewpoints. Just getting the police involved is enough to warn plenty of people off who would otherwise have spoken their minds.

Are you just going to ignore that, because it's inconvenient?

No, because I already quoted smartcooky on the chilling speech bit.

How about responding to my questions about whether this kind of behaviour is acceptable in America, or is that going to be swept under the carpet too?

Generally speaking Americans will not face consequences for posting unpopular views unless they are violating a restraining order or else making credible threats. This means we get to speak our minds in forums like this one without worrying about a future visit to an interrogation room.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

We clearly haven't lived in the same cities.

In order for there to have been a successful prosecution, there must have been more than just a single shouted insult, surely. One word in passing would not, I think, have caused the victim to feel threatened: it must have been more than that.
Interesting, too, that you express no sympathy at all for the victim. This leads me to believe that this kind of behaviour really is quite acceptable in America. You may believe this makes your country better: I don't.

It has already been noted that prosecution doesn't need to be successful at obtaining convictions in order to be successful at chilling marginal viewpoints. Just getting the police involved is enough to warn plenty of people off who would otherwise have spoken their minds.

That is an unprovable proposition. You have no way of knowing how many, if any, people, have been dissuaded from voicing their opinions because of these incidents. I will note, yet again- as you keep ignoring this- that the case mentioned above is the only one I could find that was successfully prosecuted. Gender critical views are protected speech. I know I keep saying this, but no-one has yet taken this on board.
I'll ask again: Do you think it's OK to scream insults at people on the streets? Is that protected behaviour in your country?

Generally speaking Americans will not face consequences for posting unpopular views unless they are violating a restraining order or else making credible threats. This means we get to speak our minds in forums like this one without worrying about a future visit to an interrogation room.

Shameless strawman. No-one in the UK is prosecuted or interrogated for 'expressing unpopular views'. Note that I am also expressing gender critical views on this forum. How is it that I have not been picked up by the British Stasi and "interrogated"?
Do you feel that the unrestrained nature of free speech in America has led to a better society? Your democracy is crumbling, your society is fractured, the levels of hatred, racism, and general intolerance are staggering, your media channels spout lies unimpeded, and the degrees of vitriol, mutual hatred and intolerance I see in your political discourse, both in the media and on this forum, are troubling. The lack of consequence for this is not making your country any better, I believe. Compare this with other countries, that do have legal limits on what is acceptable. Is this a price worth paying?

 

[d4m10n]

In order for there to have been a successful prosecution, there must have been more than just a single shouted insult, surely.

We've already addressed the "successful prosecution" gambit.

You have no way of knowing how many, if any, people, have been dissuaded from voicing their opinions because of these incidents.

True enough, I don't know the numbers. We have some sense of whether people enjoy being interrogated by people who can lock them up, though.

I will note, yet again- as you keep ignoring this- that the case mentioned above is the only one I could find that was successfully prosecuted.

We've already addressed the "successful prosecution" gambit.

Gender critical views are protected speech. I know I keep saying this, but no-one has yet taken this on board.

So long as cops are asking questions like "Did you understand that your tweet could be perceived as transphobic?" it's just fine to remain skeptical of this particular claim.

No-one in the UK is prosecuted or interrogated for 'expressing unpopular views'.

You've already been given examples of people being investigated and referred to CPS for unpopular views.

Note that I am also expressing gender critical views on this forum. How is it that I have not been picked up by the British Stasi and "interrogated"?

Possibly because activists know they get more of a return by going after far more visible targets.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

We've already addressed the "successful prosecution" gambit.

Indeed. None, as far as we know, for expressing gender critical views on social media.

True enough, I don't know the numbers. We have some sense of whether people enjoy being interrogated by people who can lock them up, though.

YOU CANNOT BE LOCKED UP IN THE UK FOR EXPRESSING GENDER CRITICAL VIEWS. HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO SAY THIS?

We've already addressed the "successful prosecution" gambit.

By establishing that there have been none. Glad you agree. Not sure, then, why you keep arguing as if the opposite was true.

So long as cops are asking questions like "Did you understand that your tweet could be perceived as transphobic?" it's just fine to remain skeptical of this particular claim.

It's settled under British law. Your scepticism is immaterial.

You've already been given examples of people being investigated and referred to CPS for unpopular views.

No, I don't believe I have. What 'unpopular views'?
If you mean Maya Forstater, the only source I have been able to find for this claim is Forstater herself, plus the Daily Mail repeating her claims. Have you considered the possibility that she's making it up or exaggerating, in order to remain in the media spotlight?

Possibly because activists know they get more of a return by going after far more visible targets.

Or possibly because you're talking out of your nether regions.

 

[d4m10n]

If you mean Maya Forstater, the only source I have been able to find for this claim is Forstater herself, plus the Daily Mail repeating her claims. Have you considered the possibility that she's making it up or exaggerating, in order to remain in the media spotlight?

Have you considered the possibility that you're blaming the victim of unwarranted police harassment?

Ten months after first being contacted by the police, Forstater is still under investigation. She said: “Despite my solicitor following up with written representations giving chapter and verse on the law, arguing that the investigation is unjustified and pressing for resolution, I remain under investigation.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/a...aid-trans-gp-enjoys-examining-women-g8kvtm0vj

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Have you considered the possibility that you're blaming the victim of unwarranted police harassment?

I have condemned the actions of the police numerous times. So, no, I'm not blaming the victim.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/a...aid-trans-gp-enjoys-examining-women-g8kvtm0vj

Paywalled, but presumably just another repetition of Forstater's claims, without any corroboration from, say the police or the CPS. I'm not saying this isn't true: I'm saying we don't know, because we've only got her word for it.

 

[d4m10n]

Paywalled, but presumably just another repetition of Forstater's claims, without any corroboration from, say the police or the CPS. I'm not saying this isn't true: I'm saying we don't know, because we've only got her word for it.

I suppose we shall see, one way or another. In the meanwhile, we might ask whether similarly vocal gender critical activists are being interviewed by the NYPD or the LAPD or the Chicago police for their tweets and (possibly) referred for prosecution. For all that you guys get smeared with "TERF island" and the like, it's still way easier to be terfy on this side of the pond.

 

[smartcooky]

YOU CANNOT BE LOCKED UP IN THE UK FOR EXPRESSING GENDER CRITICAL VIEWS.

As has been explained to you MULTIPLE times now, its not just "being locked up" that chills free speech - Police using threats and intimidatory tactics such as arrests and questioning which also chill free speech.

When you express gender-critical views in the UK...

You can be taken to a tribunal - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67934781

You can lose your job - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-68681038

You can expelled from a course - https://www.theguardian.com/society...logy-over-expulsion-for-gender-critical-views

You can be arrested - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ist-charged-over-allegedly-transphobic-tweets

In order for there to have been a successful prosecution, there must have been more than just a single shouted insult, surely.

And there you go again, sidestepping this important part of what we are saying. There does NOT need to be a prosecution in order to chill free speech.

Take the example of Morag Brown, a 74 year-old pensioner who had an argument with her neighbour. That neighbour accused her of using a slur, as you say, "a single shouted insult". The result was that Mrs Brown was arrested, put into the back of a Police van and taken to Kilmarnock police station where she was searched, her jewellery and the contents of her handbag taken and then she was questioned under caution. Eventually, she was released without charge.

I'm guessing you are fine with all this? Do you believe the arrest, search and interrogation of this old woman is not going to deter her from speaking her mind?

Police investigations should START with interviewing the complainant and/or reading the alleged offending post or online comment. If it is there established that no crime has been committed, the investigation should END right there.... immediately. They should not proceed to arrest/detain or question the person the complaint has been made against. No crime has been committed, so there is absolutely NO reason to proceed any further.

 

[smartcooky]

Australia takes a step backwards.
Although, I must say, 'Giggle vs Tickle' is a truly awesome name for a court case!

She should "sell" her app to someone like-minded in the USA, or find someone in the US to partner with. That way, it can be registered in the USA, and therefore, be out of reach of the gender-ideologically captured Australian judicial system.