Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

The reason "old guard skeptics like Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer have gone all-in on transphobic...theories" should be obvious to those who prioritize scientific evidence over forgone conclusions. It doesn't even occur to Gorski that he might have the short end of the evidential stuck here.
 
d4m10n said:
All the way from "It's just fine to remain skeptical of this particular claim" to "Here's why I remain skeptical of that particular claim." :p
Click to expand...

Nope. From "I am sceptical of this claim" to "I never said I was sceptical of this claim", and from "I don't believe it's legal", to "I never said I didn't think it was legal", and then on to "I never doubted it was technically legal, but it's not legal in practice".
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Nope. From "I am sceptical of this claim" to "I never said I was sceptical of this claim", and from "I don't believe it's legal", to "I never said I didn't think it was legal", and then on to "I never doubted it was technically legal, but it's not legal in practice".
Click to expand...

And in this case, I partially agree with damion. GC speech might well be legally, officially protected, but that protection is worthless if you can still be fired, suspended, expelled, dismissed, de-platformed or arrested for expressing it, and then have to fight to get all that overturned.

Free Speech ain't worth squat if using it can still get you investigated!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
And in this case, I partially agree with damion. GC speech might well be legally, officially protected, but that protection is worthless if you can still be fired, suspended, expelled, dismissed, de-platformed or arrested for expressing it, and then have to fight to get all that overturned.

Free Speech ain't worth squat if using it can still get you investigated!
Click to expand...

Do please, please, please, read my actual posts fully. I have already addressed this.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
And ignoring that I have already talked about this, and ignoring what I said, which is that these kinds of incidents are likely to become far less frequent as time goes on.
Click to expand...

First, such incidents are still happening.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...not-be-sacked-gender-critical-views-women-sex

The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?
A slew of employment tribunals shows many women have been wrongly disciplined for expressing beliefs on gender and sex​

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/cambs-county-council-discrimin/

"When I sought to participate in meetings of a workplace LGBTQIA group and expressed my “gender critical” belief, I was subjected to a group complaint by colleagues followed by a disciplinary process resulting in formal “management action” designed to silence me. I was also excluded from the network. The whole process was intensely stressful and humiliating for me. It left me feeling that my colleagues and my employer regarded me as a bigot who could only be tolerated in the workplace if I was forced to keep my beliefs to myself even when they were relevant."​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...against-bosses-claims-forced-work-stress.html

My employer BFF has never attempted to explain to me why they decided to instigate [sic] an investigation three months after I spoke at the event.

'No support was offered to me following the online harassment and abuse. My employer even publicly sided with the online bullies.

'My case is therefore that my employer is discriminating against me due to my support of women’s rights, and the holding of gender critical beliefs.'​



Second, no need for you to be so butthurt. My agreement with damion's statement doesn't have anything to do with you or anything you pave posted.
‎
‎
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Nope. From "I am sceptical of this claim" to "I never said I was sceptical of this claim", and from "I don't believe it's legal", to "I never said I didn't think it was legal", and then on to "I never doubted it was technically legal, but it's not legal in practice".
Click to expand...
I never said anything remotely resembling "I don't believe it's legal" and it's profoundly dishonest to suggest otherwise. Some given behavior can be formally legal and subject to police harassment at the same time, e.g. speaking out for patients' sex-based rights.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
None of the cases of people being investigated for expressing gender critical views involved 'death threats and the like'. OTOH, there have been cases where TRAs issued threats of violence and the police refused to investigate. And threats of violence are crimes regardless of whether or not they are hate crimes; the police should not need to know what motivates them to decide whether to investigate.
Click to expand...

Example: Carrying a sign proudly advocating "DECAPITATE TERFS"
 
Cosmic Yak said:
All of this, I think, proves my point. TRAs are trying to shut down free speech, and failing.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point, though.

TRAs are trying to shut down free speech.
TRAs make baseless complaints to police.
Police act on those baseless complaints and actively investigate females who post things that TRAs don't like, interview them under caution, sieze their electronic devices, and subject them to days/weeks/months of investigation.
Eventually, the females who have been subjected to such scrutiny win out.

But in the mean time, there has been a very clear and very chilling message sent out to all females that we shouldn't say things that males who wish to be viewed as women don't like, or else we will subjected to intense scrutiny for no good goddamned reason whatsoever.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
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?
Click to expand...

You're missing the forest for the trees. "Not successfully prosecuted" doesn't excuse the harassment, scrutiny, and invasiveness of being investigated and interviewed under caution for not having committed any crime in the first place.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
And ignoring that I have already talked about this, and ignoring what I said, which is that these kinds of incidents are likely to become far less frequent as time goes on.
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
First, such incidents are still happening.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they weren't. I said what I said in the highlighted part.

smartcooky said:
Second, no need for you to be so butthurt. My agreement with damion's statement doesn't have anything to do with you or anything you pave posted.
‎
‎
Click to expand...

Well, your response in the first part of your post clearly shows that you are still not actually reading my posts.
Then, if you are agreeing with damion, then you're both wrong. Gender critical speech is protected under the UK Equality Act. I even quoted from your own links to prove this.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think you're missing the point, though.

TRAs are trying to shut down free speech.
TRAs make baseless complaints to police.
Police act on those baseless complaints and actively investigate females who post things that TRAs don't like, interview them under caution, sieze their electronic devices, and subject them to days/weeks/months of investigation.
Eventually, the females who have been subjected to such scrutiny win out.

But in the mean time, there has been a very clear and very chilling message sent out to all females that we shouldn't say things that males who wish to be viewed as women don't like, or else we will subjected to intense scrutiny for no good goddamned reason whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Is it any wonder that I'm getting frustrated here?
EC: I am not missing the point. I have said almost exactly this, for example, here:

Cosmic Yak said:
Its [gender critical speech] legal status as protected speech hasn't stopped TRAs trying to get people with gender critical viewpoints labelled as transphobic, and trying to get them fired, suspended, dismissed, de-platformed or arrested for speaking their minds.
Which is what I have been saying all along: TRAs are trying to weaponise hate speech laws to shut down legitimate debate and legitimate freedom of expression. However, the tide has most definitely turned against them, and these attempts are going to get less and less traction with the police and the CPS as time goes on.
Click to expand...


You accuse me of 'missing the point', when you use literally the exact same words that I did, to describe the point you think I'm missing.
Unbelievable. :rolleyes:
 
d4m10n said:
Gender identity is even better

https://x.com/jessesingal/status/1828617908362043442
Click to expand...

Jesse Singal said:
Here's the definition of gender ID. The American Medical Association, the almost 200-year-old professional association of doctors, recommends that if you have questions -- and why would you? this is clear as day -- you consult “The Radical Copyeditor’s Style Guide for Writing About Transgender People”
Click to expand...

I thought he was joking about the highlighted, but nope.
 
d4m10n said:
It will be hard to find a more canonical example of a professional guild being fully captured by an ideology.
Click to expand...

My hypothesis is that they were primed, and already captured, by the time they graduated from their accrediting institution. This capture goes back at least a couple generations, and goes deeper than you might think. A distinguished body of medical professionals doesn't abdicate its privilege to define its own terms overnight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom