Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Darat said:
And no one else was either.
Click to expand...

This disconnect in smartcooky's argument is curious.
On the one hand, in his narrative, the British state is falling over itself to persecute and harass anyone challenging the TRA position, so as to discourage gender critical speech.
On the other, the same British state is refusing to prosecute gender critical speech, because they don't want to make any martyrs.
I cannot reconcile these two.
 
Surely there are more categories than "protected" and "outlawed" when we're talking about speech.

If some given message is formally tolerated but may well lead to inquiries and interrogations, that doesn't seem like either one of the above.
 
Last edited:
The UK Office for Statistics Regulation has published the outcome of their review on gender identity statistics collected in the 2021 Census in England and Wales. They concluded that the gender identity statistics are not reliable and should lose their accreditation status as official statistics.

Shame nobody warned them sooner, could have saved a lot of time and money /s

"Our review has concluded that the Census 2021 gender identity statistics published by ONS do not comply with important quality aspects of the Code of Practice for Statistics. Today we wrote to ONS and confirmed the cancellation of the accreditation of these statistics."
 
Elaedith said:
The UK Office for Statistics Regulation has published the outcome of their review on gender identity statistics collected in the 2021 Census in England and Wales. They concluded that the gender identity statistics are not reliable and should lose their accreditation status as official statistics.

Shame nobody warned them sooner, could have saved a lot of time and money /s

"Our review has concluded that the Census 2021 gender identity statistics published by ONS do not comply with important quality aspects of the Code of Practice for Statistics. Today we wrote to ONS and confirmed the cancellation of the accreditation of these statistics."
Click to expand...

They are being moved into "official statistics in development" status: https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov...producing-official-statistics-in-development/

"....It is a temporary label, supporting the development and release of timely and relevant statistics. Even though the statistics are going through development and testing, the producer is confident that they are useful. ...."
 
Matthew Best said:
Useful... but not accurate.
Click to expand...

Yeah makes sense:

Whether the statistics are materially misleading

We also considered whether the statistics are materially misleading. The purpose of the Code’s Quality pillar is to ensure that statistics are a fair representation of what they seek to measure and are not materially misleading.

At the national level, triangulation with other sources, including data from the Scottish Census, suggests that an estimate of around “1 in 200” triangulates with other sources and is not likely to be materially misleading. While the information on the size and nature of all the potential biases is incomplete, it is hard to draw the same conclusion for some more-detailed breakdowns, including for local areas where the data indicate a higher concentration of people misunderstanding the question.
Click to expand...
 
d4m10n said:
Surely there are more categories than "protected" and "outlawed" when we're talking about speech.

If some given message is formally tolerated but may well lead to inquiries and interrogations, that doesn't seem like either one of the above.
Click to expand...

Right now, there is 'legal' and 'illegal'. What third category would you like to see created between these two, and how do you think that would improve anything?
The problem, as I have repeatedly tried to explain, is not so much the laws themselves. The problem is the newness of these laws, the relative lack of court precedent, the ignorance in the police and the CPS of the details of these laws, the desire by the police to somehow attone for previous indifference to the rights of minorities by overzealous support of TRAs, and the presence of these TRAs, who are determined to exploit this uncertainty to attack their perceived opponents and shut them down.
If the law was being enforced correctly, the vast majority of these kinds of incidents would not proceed further than an initial investigation. That is the hurdle we need to cross. Smartcooky wants to scream and shout and stamp his feet and have it stop, right now, immediately!- but that is unlikely. What I'm hoping for- and predicting- is a significant lessening of the heavy-handed police actions, so that the protected free speech of citizens is just that- protected and free.
 
Elaedith said:
The UK Office for Statistics Regulation has published the outcome of their review on gender identity statistics collected in the 2021 Census in England and Wales. They concluded that the gender identity statistics are not reliable and should lose their accreditation status as official statistics.

Shame nobody warned them sooner, could have saved a lot of time and money /s

"Our review has concluded that the Census 2021 gender identity statistics published by ONS do not comply with important quality aspects of the Code of Practice for Statistics. Today we wrote to ONS and confirmed the cancellation of the accreditation of these statistics."
Click to expand...

Wading through the reports, which reminded me of providing government statistics back in the day, the expressed concern is that a much larger cohort of people said 'no' to the question, but did not provide any further information, if they were from a non-English speaking background. That has caused the researchers to wonder if the respondents didn't understand the question.

I must admit, if I had not been primed in advance by this forum, I would have probably struggled with the question:

Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?
Click to expand...

My sex registered at birth is male, and my gender is masculine, isn't it?

Are those things the same or different?

Are genders things like hetrosexual, gay, lesbian, intersex? Do any of those terms ever match 'sex' on birth certificates?

My guess is that there was nowhere near enough information provided to help people with that one. I'm assuming that there were guides provided in the language of the household, but it sounds like they were insufficient for that question, if they were provided.

Hopefully we'll do better with the new questions in the Australian census.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Re the highlighted. smartcooky, do you now accept that such a post was made? You can't have this both ways. If Harrow was guilty of doxxing, do you think it's OK to do that? I notice you claim the doxxing involved Hayden's business address. The article quotes Hayden as saying it was the home address that was leaked. Where did you get the information that is was, in fact, the business address?
Click to expand...

On 1 September 2016, Hayden incorporated a company called SRH Law Limited (company number 10355646). The sole shareholder and director was Stephanie Rebecca Hayden.

If you check the UK companies register, you will find the following

01 Sep 2016
Incorporation
Statement of capital on 2016-09-01
GBP 500,100

Here is a link to the Certificate of Incorporation (its a PDF)

https://find-and-update.company-inf.../MzE1NjI5MjU2OGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf

Note: The address given for Hayden is a residential address. i.e. his residential address, an address that was already in the public square so Farrow did not doxx him. ANYONE could have looked up that information, just like I did. You only need to know his name and the fact that he was a lawyer (which is also information that was already in the public square). You can look that address up on Google maps and see a picture of it to confirm it is a residential address.

He was operating his law firm out of his residence until August 2017, and which point he changed his business address to a commercial location. Link below (another PDF)

https://find-and-update.company-inf.../MzE4MzA0OTY3NWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf

Cosmic Yak said:
I will point out, yet again, that Scottow's conviction was overturned on appeal.
Click to expand...

I will point out, yet again that this is not the issue.

The arrest of people who make social media posts that trigger snowflakes like Hayden still causes those people to have to have to expend capital, hire a lawyer, be interrogated under caution and to have to deal with disruptions to their lives THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SUFFER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I mean, what the actual **** is it going to take to get through to you that before anything gets overturned on appeal, or it goes to trial, or even if a prosecution does not even proceed - THE DAMAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE

The prospect of having to face arrest and interrogation risks dissuading people to from posting freely... THIS HAS A CHILLING EFFECT ON FREE SPEECH!

Cosmic Yak said:
Once again, you are quoting past incidents as if they reflect the present. They do not: none of the cases you have quoted have led to a successful prosecution.
Click to expand...

Once again, Caroline Farrow's arrest was on 27/04/2023. Her family devices were not returned until March this year... 2024, while the investigation was ongoing.... recent enough for you!?

Cosmic Yak said:
The tide is turning against the TRAs.
Click to expand...

Yes, and about time!

Cosmic Yak said:
Your frankly childish and unrealistic demand that these incidents stop right now is, well, childish and unrealistic. How do you suggest stopping TRAs from launching vexatious litigation attempts?
Click to expand...

By declaring them vexatious litigants?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vexatious-litigants

Vexatious litigants are individuals who persistently take legal action against others in cases without any merit, who are forbidden from starting civil cases in courts without permission.​

You stop the vexatious litigation at is source. Frankly, after over 20 lawsuits, all of which but one failed, I am astonished that Hayden has not already been declared a vexatious litigant.

Cosmic Yak said:
Would you like the police to ignore all reports of hate crimes? Rather than clinging to a nirvana fallacy, how about some practical proposals?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered, but I'll answer it again.

The Minister of State for Crime and Policing sends an instruction to the Commissioner of the Met which he must forward to the heads of all 45 territorial police forces and 3 special police forces in the UK, that when any Social media posts are being investigated due to a complaint from a member of the public for violation of the Public Order Act 1986 and/or its amendment, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, or any other relevant act, the police may interview the complainant, but before they contact or interview the complainee, they must first establish that the post or posts in question do indeed violate one or more acts.

Such an instruction would stop this crap in its tracks.

Now you might argue, "how can the Police investigate the post(s) without interviewing the complainee?" The answer is as simple as it is straightforward - the complainant has provided the post(s) which is all they need to make a decision as to whether it reaches the threshold for violating a relevant law. Either it does, or it does not - there is no grey area.

If it does, an arrest and interview under caution could be warranted.

If it does not, then the investigation ends right there, and the complainee is never event spoken to.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Surely there are more categories than "protected" and "outlawed" when we're talking about speech.

If some given message is formally tolerated but may well lead to inquiries and interrogations, that doesn't seem like either one of the above.
Click to expand...

Not in the UK, you either have speech or in the case of the UK the wider "freedom of expression" that is legal or not legal. What other category is there in the context of this thread of the discussion?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Right now, there is 'legal' and 'illegal'. What third category would you like to see created between these two, and how do you think that would improve anything?
The problem, as I have repeatedly tried to explain, is not so much the laws themselves. The problem is the newness of these laws, the relative lack of court precedent, the ignorance in the police and the CPS of the details of these laws, the desire by the police to somehow attone for previous indifference to the rights of minorities by overzealous support of TRAs, and the presence of these TRAs, who are determined to exploit this uncertainty to attack their perceived opponents and shut them down.
If the law was being enforced correctly, the vast majority of these kinds of incidents would not proceed further than an initial investigation. That is the hurdle we need to cross. Smartcooky wants to scream and shout and stamp his feet and have it stop, right now, immediately!- but that is unlikely. What I'm hoping for- and predicting- is a significant lessening of the heavy-handed police actions, so that the protected free speech of citizens is just that- protected and free.
Click to expand...

It is also what happened when the original "hate speech" laws went into force in England and Wales. There had to be legal cases to set precedents as to how it was defined in the real world. Thankfully I like a lot of other people were wrong and the courts ruled that whilst the legislation may have read "wide" it was tightly constrained by our right to freedom of expression. Comedians are not dragged off the stage, the police are not raiding comedy clubs etc. The same has happened with the latest additions to "hate speech" legislation. But much quicker since we already have legal precedents set for a lot of the issues.

(The same is true for where it intersects with employment rights. You can't be sacked for having "gender critical views" or "homosexual critical views" and so on - or rather of course you can but it will be held to be illegal.)
 
Darat said:
Not in the UK, you either have speech or in the case of the UK the wider "freedom of expression" that is legal or not legal. What other category is there in the context of this thread of the discussion?
Click to expand...
Formally protected but not actually protected in practice, as in the several examples given above. Keep up.
 
Darat said:
Not in the UK, you either have speech or in the case of the UK the wider "freedom of expression" that is legal or not legal. What other category is there in the context of this thread of the discussion?
Click to expand...

Non Crime Hate Incident?

Arrested but Not Charged?
 
Last edited:
Since the "misgendering" thread got folded in here, I'm going to ask again what makes pronouns the "correct" ones, assuming you're the sort of person who is prescriptive enough to correct other folk's language in these matters.

Suppose Alph & Beto are having an argument about how pronouns work. Alph says that pronouns are assigned to people in the same way they are assigned to cats and dogs and horses, that is, based on sex. Beto says pronouns must be assigned to people based on what those people affirm about themselves, even if that causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for folks like Alph.

A non-prescriptivist would likely say there is no correct answer here, only two different sets of ideas as to what role pronouns play in our language. That said, what arguments can be made to show Alph is doing language wrong and ought to change his ways to match those of Beto, or vice-versa?
 
Aber said:
Non Crime Hate Incident?

Arrested but Not Charged?
Click to expand...


Yup, and in both cases, this is (ab)using the tools of the law to intimidate and silence, and to chill free speech/freedom of expression.

This is what snowflakes like Stephanie Hayden excel at, complaining to Police to have them go around and arrest people who post things she percieves as rude to her... and the cops buy into this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom