Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

I mean a married man identifying as a celibate priest for inclusion in an exclusive role seems pretty on topic to me.

 

[lionking]

Australia will hold a census next year. Initially there was to be no question about LGBTI status because the government feared the debate could be divisive (and it would have been) but has since caved into pressure from the trans lobby and the Greens and will include it.

What could be the danger, some might say. Well, in Australia a lot of people take the piss when filling in the census. In one many Australians declared “Jedi” as their religion. The Bureau of Statistics later refused to acknowledge this and warned that, because census affects public funding, bogus responses are a bad thing.

My real concern is that there will be an explosion of people ticking the transgender box, either to take the piss or because of a fleeting feeling of being trans. Let’s wait and see.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Emily, you've missed one really important threat, something that worries people enormously and causes them to edit their lawfully protected speech or even shut up entirely. The possibility that the police will seize all their electronic devices. This has happened, and it causes enormous disruption to the people it happens to. They take computers, phones, tablets, the lot, ostensibly to search them for incriminating evidence against the culprit. Losing your computers and your phone, probably for months on end, is a horrific prospect in this day and age. Especially if you're not too sure about backups and whether they might seize the backups too.

Look at what happened to Caroline Farrow, the wife of a Catholic priest who was actually playing the organ in church at the time certain tweets were alleged to have been sent, who has been the subject of repeated police harrasment on account of someone who really ought to be classed as a vexatious litigant repeatedly lodging complaints about her. They wanted all her electronic devices, and I think even her children's, and applied for some sort of bail conditions to be applied to her even though she hadn't even been charged with anything never mind convicted.

Or the disabled woman in Glasgow who was hauled into a police station for questioning, then turned loose at three in the morning to make her own way home on her mobility scooter, without her phone (which they kept).

These cops are so indoctrinated with the gospel of the Holy Trans that they believe, quite viscerally, that anyone saying or doing anything that a trans person doesn't like is ipso facto a disgusting, horrible person who deserves every inconvenience they can be put to, even if in the end there are no charges against them. I don't know how it has come to this, but it has.

I know of another case, not about the trans issue, but with similar connotations. A poster on Twitter referred to a journalist (if you can call someone who writes for the Scottish Daily Express a journalist) as "an absolute disgrace" or something like that. No foul language was used, and there was no defamation. (It may have been vulgar abuse, though it was quite mild, but it wasn't defamatory.) At the time both parties blocked each other, and the tweet wasn't directed at the journalist at all. She must have used a second account or something to see it.

She complained to the Met that this constituted harassment. The tweeter was arrested and held in a cell for 15 hours, and denied his anti-anxiety medication. All his computers, which he needed for his work (he's self-employed) were taken. Eventually he was released, but without the electronic devices. Fortunately he had backups, but he had to spend a considerable amount on new hardware to continue his job. He was also racked with worry that the police might plant illegal porn on his computer and he'd find himself prosecuted as a sex offender.

That didn't happen, but his devices were scrutinised for any other evidence of online harassment to the point where several of his friends found themselves having to explain that certain bantering tweets were not in fact serious death threats and no they didn't want to press charges. It was also leaked to the press that he had been "arrested on suspicion of harassing a woman", which of course soon turned into the certain fact that he'd been arrested for sexual harassment.

Eventually it was decided that saying "SG is an absolute disgrace" on Twitter wasn't actually a criminal offence, and neither was anything else they'd been able to find on his computers, and months later he was told he could have his stuff back if he travelled to central London to pick it all up.

This is just one sample of what the police can do if they take it into their heads to make someone's life a misery. It's not funny. Even if you're self-employed, or retired, or not employed, or have a sympathetic employer who is not going to sack you for saying that only women get pregnant, this threat is something that can be used against anyone.

Yeah, it's an insane level of chilling effect that goes on in the UK. So far, that hasn't been the case in the US, and I hope it never gets there.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Harkening back to the earliest days of this thread... Let's resurrect the spectre of how transgender identified males impact female athletics, and the repeated refrain of "it's no big deal, there aren't that many, no female athletes will be impacted if we let males with gender feels compete in female sports"

https://www.shewon.org/

# of Female Athletes: 717
# of Medals: 1055
# of Competitions: 522
# of Sports: 37

 

[angrysoba]

Australia will hold a census next year. Initially there was to be no question about LGBTI status because the government feared the debate could be divisive (and it would have been) but has since caved into pressure from the trans lobby and the Greens and will include it.

What could be the danger, some might say. Well, in Australia a lot of people take the piss when filling in the census. In one many Australians declared “Jedi” as their religion. The Bureau of Statistics later refused to acknowledge this and warned that, because census affects public funding, bogus responses are a bad thing.

My real concern is that there will be an explosion of people ticking the transgender box, either to take the piss or because of a fleeting feeling of being trans. Let’s wait and see.

Well, looking at a previous census paper, it looks as though you check "male" or "female" or "non-binary sex" for each person in the house.

I presume a transperson who answers it would answer it in the way that they self-identify.

So I don't think it would make that much difference, or in fact may even clarify things, if there is an LGBT+ section.

 

[lionking]

Well, looking at a previous census paper, it looks as though you check "male" or "female" or "non-binary sex" for each person in the house.

I presume a transperson who answers it would answer it in the way that they self-identify.

So I don't think it would make that much difference, or in fact may even clarify things, if there is an LGBT+ section.

Only if you ignore how seriously (that is not much) Australians treat the census, hence the Jedi response in the past.

 

[angrysoba]

Only if you ignore how seriously (that is not much) Australians treat the census, hence the Jedi response in the past.

That simply undermines any of the data of the census in that case.

 

[smartcooky]

Look at what happened to Caroline Farrow........... or the disabled woman in Glasgow...

I know of another case, not about the trans issue, but with similar connotations.

This is just one sample of what the police can do if they take it into their heads to make someone's life a misery. It's not funny. Even if you're self-employed, or retired, or not employed, or have a sympathetic employer who is not going to sack you for saying that only women get pregnant, this threat is something that can be used against anyone.

I was astonished that you were talking abut them doing this without a search warrant - and then I found this...

Under Section 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), the police have the legal power to seize property, such as a phone, if they think it is relevant to an investigation. The reality is that your phone can be held until it's no longer needed for the investigation or the investigation concludes.​

Staggering! So all they have to do is say that your devices are relevant to their investigation, and that gives them the right to seize your phones, tablets and computers without a warrant.

That is Police-State stuff!

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Let me rephrase: You're missing the point that posters in this thread are making.

Nobody is questioning the legality involved. We know that it's been deemed legally protected speech. We know that the legal challenges have failed to yield a prosecution. We know all of that, so we're a bit baffled as to why you keep bringing it up and harping on that aspect of it.

I have yet to see damion clarifying his two contradictory statements about this, so no, "we all" don't know that.

The inference that we end up making is that you are arguing that because it's legal speech and none of the charges have resulted in prosecution... there is not a problem.

I reposted my comments saying this was a problem, in response to you. Once again, I find that people are ignoring what I said in order to construct a strawman of my views. Try actually reading what I said before lecturing me on something I've said before, multiple times, as clearly as I can.

But that's a response to a claim that none of us actually made.

The problem that we see, that has been pointed out several times, is the chilling effect of being arrested/detained/questioned/charged in the first place. The problem is that *despite* it being legally protected free speech, people who engage in such legal behavior repeatedly find themselves being subjected to police intrusion that borders on harassment.

You're quoting my own words back at me to claim I haven't said these things. Ridiculous.

That's the problem we have been focused on. When you respond by repeatedly telling us that none of the charges have resulted in prosecution... it comes across as you deflecting the issue. At a minimum, it makes it very much seem as if you're not getting it at all.

No, Let me try again,
GENDER CRITICAL SPEECH IS PROTECTED IN THE UK. THIS WAS THE POINT I WAS ARGUING.
Is that clear enough? Have you got it yet?
I'm not deflecting a damn thing. I have tried- and clearly failed- to make that crystal clear. I have addressed what you're saying here, over and over again, yet you and others keep arguing straight past that, as if I hadn't said what I said.
One more time, for clarity:
TRAs ARE ABUSING HATE SPEECH LAWS TO TRY TO SHUT DOWN FREE SPEECH. THIS IS A BAD THING. THIS MEANS I THINK IT IS BAD. IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN, BECAUSE IT'S BAD. I DON'T WANT FREE SPEECH TO BE SHUT DOWN, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A BAD THING, AND I DON'T WANT BAD THINGS. THE POLICE SHOULD NOT BE HARASSING PEOPLE FOR EXPRESSING PROTECED VIEWS. THAT IS A BAD THING THAT IS BAD, AND I OPPOSE IT BECAUSE IT'S BAD.
Do please let me know if any of that is confusing you, or indicative that I have missed the point you want to make, and I will attempt to clarify it for you.

Let me try an analogy - with fair warning that analogies are nothing more than illustrative vehicles, not direct comparisons.

I don't need your patronising analogies, thanks all the same. I'll stick with the point I've been making all along, which you persist in ignoring, or misconstruing, or mischaracterising.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

By the way, it is entirely possible that, rather than having a chilling effect on free speech, these TRA attempts may actually provoke the opposite result. Take the example of JK Rowling: some people have been so angered by this abuse of the law that they are actually posting more gender-critical speech, not less, to highlight this issue and to try to get the police to apply the law correctly.

 

[Rolfe]

And that makes it OK?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And that makes it OK?

I have yet to see damion clarifying his two contradictory statements about this, so no, "we all" don't know that.


I reposted my comments saying this was a problem, in response to you. Once again, I find that people are ignoring what I said in order to construct a strawman of my views. Try actually reading what I said before lecturing me on something I've said before, multiple times, as clearly as I can.



You're quoting my own words back at me to claim I haven't said these things. Ridiculous.



No, Let me try again,
GENDER CRITICAL SPEECH IS PROTECTED IN THE UK. THIS WAS THE POINT I WAS ARGUING.
Is that clear enough? Have you got it yet?
I'm not deflecting a damn thing. I have tried- and clearly failed- to make that crystal clear. I have addressed what you're saying here, over and over again, yet you and others keep arguing straight past that, as if I hadn't said what I said.
One more time, for clarity:
TRAs ARE ABUSING HATE SPEECH LAWS TO TRY TO SHUT DOWN FREE SPEECH. THIS IS A BAD THING. THIS MEANS I THINK IT IS BAD. IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN, BECAUSE IT'S BAD. I DON'T WANT FREE SPEECH TO BE SHUT DOWN, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A BAD THING, AND I DON'T WANT BAD THINGS. THE POLICE SHOULD NOT BE HARASSING PEOPLE FOR EXPRESSING PROTECED VIEWS. THAT IS A BAD THING THAT IS BAD, AND I OPPOSE IT BECAUSE IT'S BAD.Do please let me know if any of that is confusing you, or indicative that I have missed the point you want to make, and I will attempt to clarify it for you.



I don't need your patronising analogies, thanks all the same. I'll stick with the point I've been making all along, which you persist in ignoring, or misconstruing, or mischaracterising.

Jesus ******* Christ.

 

[Rolfe]

I was astonished that you were talking abut them doing this without a search warrant - and then I found this...

Under Section 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), the police have the legal power to seize property, such as a phone, if they think it is relevant to an investigation. The reality is that your phone can be held until it's no longer needed for the investigation or the investigation concludes.​

Staggering! So all they have to do is say that your devices are relevant to their investigation, and that gives them the right to seize your phones, tablets and computers without a warrant.

That is Police-State stuff!

This appears to be the case. It's the threat that most worries people second only to being sacked. They can simply take the electronic devices we rely on for our daily lives and keep them as long as they want. Many people absolutely rely on apps on their phone to do everything from pay for a cup of coffee to navigate them across country.

If that can be done to you because you tweeted "SG is an absolute disgrace" (while blocking SG and being blocked by her on Twitter) because for whatever reason the Metropolitan Police decided to take SG's part when she ran to them complaining that this was harassment, anything can happen.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Look at what happened to Caroline Farrow, the wife of a Catholic priest who was actually playing the organ in church at the time certain tweets were alleged to have been sent, who has been the subject of repeated police harrasment on account of someone who really ought to be classed as a vexatious litigant repeatedly lodging complaints about her. They wanted all her electronic devices, and I think even her children's, and applied for some sort of bail conditions to be applied to her even though she hadn't even been charged with anything never mind convicted.

It is notable that the only references I can find to this case are from either right-wing sources such as GB News and the Daily Mail, or from Catholic/evangelist Christian ones. And the notorious Epoch Times. All are heavily biased. I have been unable to find any balanced reporting of this incident, which makes me a little suspicious. Most of it relies mainly on Farrow's own account.
Farrow was a member and regular poster on Kiwi Farms, a truly unpleasant website. It is quite possible that she did post things that crossed the line into hate speech: I have also not been able to find out what she said in the comments that prompted the complaint. Just saying that on a sceptics' forum, a nod in the direction of scepticism is merited once in a while.
As this case is 2 years old, and nothing seems to have happened, I assume she was released without charge. Again, before the screaming starts, this doesn't justify the police action per se, but it does reinforce my point that these attempts have failed every time. Again, it is my hope that this kind of situation will stop happening, once the police get their act together and stop overreacting to things that are not crimes.

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

Or the disabled woman in Glasgow who was hauled into a police station for questioning, then turned loose at three in the morning to make her own way home on her mobility scooter, without her phone (which they kept).



I know of another case, not about the trans issue, but with similar connotations. A poster on Twitter referred to a journalist (if you can call someone who writes for the Scottish Daily Express a journalist) as "an absolute disgrace" or something like that.

Have you got names or sources for these two stories?

 

[Darat]

.. Snip..

The case you refer to shows both a weakness and a strength of the UK systems - precedents often have to be created so that people can make judgements regarding what the legislation passed by parliament means. And sometimes until such precedents are set people and organisations must use their own understanding of what the legislation means and sometimes, they get it wrong.

... snip...

Since we have had precedent setting cases in employment tribunals and courts folks who are now wrongly accused of breaking the law or dismissed from employment can sue companies and even the police if they are wrongly arrested and so on. No win no fee companies will be happy to take these cases.

Yes it is terrible what has happened to some people for not only expressing entirely legal but protected freedom of expression but that is a "cost" of the legal/justice system in common law countries. Until precedents are set there can be grey areas. This is akin to what happened when the so called "hate speech" laws were first brought into England and Wales, many people were up in arms (as was I, it was the last time I did any kind of political campaigning) comedians were saying that they would be prosecuted and so on. Our right of freedom of expression trumped those laws ex ept in some very narrowly defined areas. It is also what happened when Scotland passed their recent legislation, the likes of Rowling were not arrested because the precedents had already been set.

 

[Rolfe]

It is notable that the only references I can find to this case are from either right-wing sources such as GB News and the Daily Mail, or from Catholic/evangelist Christian ones. And the notorious Epoch Times. All are heavily biased. I have been unable to find any balanced reporting of this incident, which makes me a little suspicious. Most of it relies mainly on Farrow's own account.
Farrow was a member and regular poster on Kiwi Farms, a truly unpleasant website. It is quite possible that she did post things that crossed the line into hate speech: I have also not been able to find out what she said in the comments that prompted the complaint. Just saying that on a sceptics' forum, a nod in the direction of scepticism is merited once in a while.
As this case is 2 years old, and nothing seems to have happened, I assume she was released without charge. Again, before the screaming starts, this doesn't justify the police action per se, but it does reinforce my point that these attempts have failed every time. Again, it is my hope that this kind of situation will stop happening, once the police get their act together and stop overreacting to things that are not crimes.

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

Have you got names or sources for these two stories?

Do you know what argumentum ad hominen is? Similar things have happened to multiple people. Are you going to declare that they're all lying?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Do you know what argumentum ad hominen is? Similar things have happened to multiple people. Are you going to declare that they're all lying?

No. I'm asking for details. Details you have yet to provide.
Nor have I made any accusations of lying. Nor have I used an ad hominem.

 

[d4m10n]

Does anyone have a good example of when someone "crossed the line into hate speech" on the topic of gender rather than sex or race?

 

[theprestige]

Nor have I used an ad hominem.

You totally just discounted the Daily Mail's report because it's the Daily Mail, not because the report is flawed.

Please link to the Daily Mail article you're referring to, so we can see for ourselves whether it should be dismissed or discounted on its merits, rather than on your opinion of its publisher.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You totally just discounted the Daily Mail's report because it's the Daily Mail, not because the report is flawed.

Please link to the Daily Mail article you're referring to, so we can see for ourselves whether it should be dismissed or discounted on its merits, rather than on your opinion of its publisher.

No.