Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[Gnasher]

On 24/05/2021 at 16:48, Rico1304 said:

There’s a woman in Scotland who’s been required to attend a police station over a tweet in which she says a man with a beard isn’t a woman. I think we can file that along with things that were said wouldn’t happen. 
 

 

 

I think we can put the above quote in with your 'It really didn't happen like that at all'

file. 

[Rico1304]

Still going I don’t see. 

[Gnasher]

7 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Still going I don’t see. 

Aww Rico got me on ignore the fucking wuss..

 

Anyway he dosnt deserve to see the brilliance of this twee, regarding the lady that's been charged and the endless support pictures of ribbons in a noose.

 

 

 

[cloggypop]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Lately there does seem to be an epidemic of people seeing nooses that aren't there.

You still leaving the country because of antisemitism? 

[Gnasher]

In fairness to the Scottish police I don't this Miller lady will be sending out many hangman's pics tonight.

[Gnasher]

3 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

You still leaving the country because of antisemitism? 

He just waiting for a good old-fashioned Liberal to take power in Israel. At the moment that country's run by the peace and love Marxist brigade.

[Strontium]

18 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

You still leaving the country because of antisemitism? 

 

Did I miss something? When was I leaving the country because of antisemitism?

[Babb'sBurstNad]

No noose is good noose.

[Rico1304]

 

[Rico1304]

BBc changed the headline. Why? 

[redheart]

Interesting that the Guardian were willing to publish this

 

Stonewall risks all it has fought for in accusing those who disagree with it of hate speech | Sonia Sodha | The Guardian

 

The most important paragraph is this

 

"Gender-critical feminists believe that in a patriarchal society women’s bodies and their role in sex and reproduction play a major role in their oppression. Gender identity – the feeling of being a man or a woman regardless of one’s biological sex – can therefore never wholly replace sex as a protected characteristic in equalities law and women have the right to organise on the basis of their sex and to access single-sex spaces."

 

Precisely. Transwomen are not women. They are transwomen not women and never will be

[Numero Veinticinco]

If only there was some way to differentiate between sex and gender. Like calling one female and one women. 

[Rico1304]

 

[Moo]

3 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

 

But that's not a large number and there's no "top" or notable ones blah, blah, blah...[ignores the importance of acceptance and visibility in increased participation]

[Rico1304]

11 minutes ago, Moo said:

But that's not a large number and there's no "top" or notable ones blah, blah, blah...[ignores the importance of acceptance and visibility in increased participation]

Earlier in the thread there’s a discussion about the Olympic rules being changed. I wish I’d known then that the ‘study’ that was used to change the rules was based on 8 athletes self expressed experiences and is basically a load of old bollocks. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

[Rico1304]

Starmer has said today Labour will back self-ID if elected.  This won’t end well for him.  Nearer the election he and his MPs will be asked ‘can you define a woman?’ and the answers will make them look stupid. 

[sir roger]

7 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

That's the end of your test career , Numero.

[SasaS]

Wasn't this appeal ruling supposed to be a big deal? 

 

A British woman who got fired for saying that transgender women are "not really women" got her job back after winning an appeal against an employment tribunal.

Maya Forstater's contract with her employer, Centre for Global Development (CGD), was not renewed in 2019 after posting several tweets expressing her beliefs about how transgender people cannot change their biological sex and are male or "honorary female," reported The Times.

 

https://www.insider.com/woman-fired-saying-trans-women-are-not-women-wins-appeal-2021-6

[Rico1304]

12 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Wasn't this appeal ruling supposed to be a big deal? 

 

A British woman who got fired for saying that transgender women are "not really women" got her job back after winning an appeal against an employment tribunal.

Maya Forstater's contract with her employer, Centre for Global Development (CGD), was not renewed in 2019 after posting several tweets expressing her beliefs about how transgender people cannot change their biological sex and are male or "honorary female," reported The Times.

 

https://www.insider.com/woman-fired-saying-trans-women-are-not-women-wins-appeal-2021-6

That’s a pretty poor article. She’s not got her job back and the ruling was only on one part of her appeal.  It means that being ‘gender critical’ doesn’t make you a nazi.  Common sense prevailed. 

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

That’s a pretty poor article. She’s not got her job back and the ruling was only on one part of her appeal.  It means that being ‘gender critical’ doesn’t make you a nazi.  Common sense prevailed. 

Can you post a better one? I saw this on FB and remembered that the ruling was due. The Times is behind a paywall.

[Sugar Ape]

10 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Can you post a better one? I saw this on FB and remembered that the ruling was due. The Times is behind a paywall.

This is what The Times said about it:

 

The Times view on the Maya Forstater verdict: Right to Think

 

In a liberal society, observed John Stuart Mill, the law does not exist to force us into conformity, but to protect us from actual harm. This principle was integral to the landmark decision yesterday by a judge-led panel, which ruled that holding a view that biological sex never changes regardless of a person’s gender identification is a protected philosophical belief under equality law. The fact that this basic tenet of a free and open democracy has needed reaffirmation is a troubling sign of the times. Nonetheless it should be hailed as a victory, if nothing else then for common sense.

 

The case in question concerned Maya Forstater, an expert on tax avoidance, who was dismissed from the London office of the Centre for Global Development two years ago after she was said to have invoked “offensive and exclusionary” language on social media. Ms Forstater, who had tweeted comments such as “woman means adult human female”, was accused of “fear-mongering” and an initial employment tribunal in 2019 ruled that the decision to dismiss Ms Forstater was lawful. Yesterday, however, an appeal tribunal led by Mr Justice Choudhury overturned that ruling, saying the original judge had “erred in law”. The beliefs of Ms Forstater were not, as the initial tribunal ruled, antithetical to the human rights of others and hence unworthy of respect. Though critical of gender reassignment, Ms Forstater’s comments “did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons”, Mr Justice Choudhury stated.

 

The implications of this ruling are profound. Regardless of one’s position on the debate around gender, the original verdict upholding Ms Forstater’s dismissal set a dangerous and misguided precedent. In effect, it gave succour to those who would wish to see views that they do not agree with stifled. Its overturning strikes an important blow for freedom of speech, which in recent years has all too often found itself outmuscled by the competing concern for the rights of those whom it might offend. This worrying pattern has become manifest across all areas of British life, from the judiciary to academia. So it is heartening that a line has been drawn in the sand making clear that a person should not lose their livelihood for expressing a belief.

 

Moreover the judgment rightly delineates the essential difference between holding an opinion and how one expresses it. Importantly it does not give a licence for people to act on their beliefs in a way that would be harmful to others. In this way, had Ms Forstater been rude to colleagues there might legitimately have been grounds for dismissal. However, the judgment makes clear that simply holding an opinion is not in itself harmful or discriminatory.

 

There is no question that trans people are subject to much harassment and prejudice. And like every other group that is the target of discrimination, they are of course entitled to be protected. However, it is also true that gender theory is a topic of ongoing cultural and political debate, and it cannot be that certain opinions, widely held in the case of Ms Forstater’s, become unutterable. In a democratic society people have to tolerate each other and that includes tolerating others’ beliefs. What’s more, plurality of opinion is the necessary condition for social progress, and a society that stops talking to itself is one that atrophies. It is imperative that courts continue to protect this fundamental principle.

[Rico1304]

11 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Can you post a better one? I saw this on FB and remembered that the ruling was due. The Times is behind a paywall.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/gender-critical-beliefs-are-worthy-of-respect-in-a-democratic-society/

 

Theres another one starting today.  Tavistock could be in trouble. 

[Rico1304]

A 43yr old has been selected to represent New Zealand at the Olympics. That is not the  most remarkable thing about her by a long chalk. 

[Jose Jones]

50 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

A 43yr old has been selected to represent New Zealand at the Olympics. That is not the  most remarkable thing about her by a long chalk. 

I saw that, also saw that Caster Semenya has been barred from taking part in any races shorter than 5000m, unless she takes testosterone reducing drugs. As her high levels of testosterone give her too much of an advantage in shorter distances.

She’s refused, and then failed to qualify in the 5000m trials.

 

Presumably the Kiwi weightlifter must be on some pretty strict rules? Or is weightlifting adjudged differently to athletics?