advertisement


Everyday sexism

For those who don't understand why trans peeps are concerned about discrimination and violence, have a look at this article —

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/20...found-out-she-was-transgender-police-say.html

Based on phone records, police believe that Bogdanov may have been seeking a sexual encounter that night, and upon finding out that Kuhnhausen was transgender, became enraged and strangled her to death, then drove her body out to Larch Mountain and left it there.

“I believe that David became enraged at the realization that he had engaged in sexual contact with a male whom he believed to be female and strangled Nikki to death,” Vancouver Police Officer Jason Mills wrote in the probable cause affidavit.
​
Joe
 
In the USA the trans panic is a defence plea where “panic” at discovering someone is transgender is used as a sort of diminished responsibility “where it is legal to argue that a trans woman is responsible for your decision to murder her”. Needless to say men use this to justify seeking out trans women to murder.

Here are the states (in pink) where it is legal to use a “Trans Panic” plea. More on this & how the American Bar Association wishes to shut it down in the link.

Trans-Panic-map-FB.jpg
 
Last edited:
claire.foxx said:
She is free to say what she said, and continues to say; there is absolutely nothing stopping her from repeating... her free speech has clearly not been limited. It’s just that what she said was judged to be “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. I think what you’re trying to say is that you don’t like the fact that she cannot have free speech without consequences, and that’s a wholly different thing.
  1. Minor point of correction: this is not a ”cabal of SJWs” but a gov.uk employment tribunal plus a Judge.
  2. Major point of correction is Forstarter, in fact, refused to use the desired pronouns as referenced in the summation by the Judge: (source: Page 25, section 90)
Click to expand...
When there are 'consequences' for your speech, then your speech is not free. In more totalitarian societies those consequences might involve incarceration, here in the UK in this case it has meant the loss of one's income (from a particular source anyway, and yes strictly - her contract not being renewed). But since when has it become 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' to adhere to biological fact? Without getting into the philosophy of sex and gender, can't we and others even agree that these things are able to be discussed? (yes without censure!). I thought I read somewhere that Forstater said she would happpily refer to trans people by whatever pronouns they preferred? Besides the fact that we are having this discussion now - without censure - is surely a good thing? I for one am learning more about Trans peoples experiences.
 
Speech is not free. It never has been. There's no society on Earth that allows anyone to shout whatever they want to with no consequence, although some do allow a small ruling group to do so. If you hold a belief, you take responsibility for what that means. The equality of all citizens before the law trumps the right to freedom of speech, every single time, and speech that tries to undermine that principle of equality cannot be legally protected.

Forstater was very badly advised to use that particular law as the key to her defence - she would have had a better case if she'd gone with a case of being dismissed for holding different political opinions to her co-workers, some of whom, I suspect were getting offended on behalf of hypothetical "other people", but I guess (I haven't looked) that some of the people who aided her are more used to working with religious groups, who can and do use this law.

People who jump loudly to the aid of an imagined victim are as bad as the ones to pig-headedly repeat statements that they know can be offensive. The two feed off each other, and there's no winner.

@Frankiesays -Incidentally, regarding something you mentioned previously about the EHCR. The "Protected Speech" parts of the UK Equality Act regarding religion are an invention of Westminster, and have nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights. I live in a country whose judiciary fully recognises the authority of the EHCR, yet there is no similar law on the Irish statute book.

We do, however have a written constitution that says that citizens have a right "to express freely their convictions and opinions", but that this is "subject to public order and morality". This provision comes after a statement that all citizens are equal (again, the right to equality of treatment beats the right to public speech) Morality is not described in religious terms (or at all), and in fact, we recently removed the concept of blasphemy from the constitution, which, to me is a step in the opposite direction to the UK law, yet we are still in alignment with the EHCR's rulings.

This is another example of the long-standing strategy by Westminster politicians of all stripes to blame their own unpopular ideas on "Europe". I'm mildly curious to see how this trick will survive them leaving the European Union, but to be honest, I'm much more concerned for the livelihoods of my friends living there.
 
Frankiesays said:
When there are 'consequences' for your speech, then your speech is not free. In more totalitarian societies those consequences might involve incarceration, here in the UK in this case it has meant the loss of one's income (from a particular source anyway, and yes strictly - her contract not being renewed). But since when has it become 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' to adhere to biological fact? Without getting into the philosophy of sex and gender, can't we and others even agree that these things are able to be discussed? (yes without censure!). I thought I read somewhere that Forstater said she would happpily refer to trans people by whatever pronouns they preferred? Besides the fact that we are having this discussion now - without censure - is surely a good thing? I for one am learning more about Trans peoples experiences.
Click to expand...

Which is the slippery slope to a tactic hate groups use which results in discussions like “Jews are not human” “black people should be property”, or “Trans women are not women”. The paradox of intolerance: In order to maintain a tolerant society, a society must be intolerant of intolerance. Which is essentially about what boundaries can or should be set in deciding what are topics that can be discussed without censure.

Trans people (among others) are a protected characteristic for a lot of good reasons; we’re a target for a lot of hate groups & the way hate speech operates in this case was she tried to argue her opinions & beliefs are also a protected category. The textbook line of attack is to appear initially reasonable a-la Forstarter’s initial stance that is over time revealed to be disrespectful of human rights & dignity; The tribunal set out to test the validity of her claim that her beliefs are a protected category. The judge looks at the totality of the evidence and found Forstarter’s claim wanting.

tl;dr: If a discussion’s premise is founded on the dehumanising and intolerance of a protected category then you can’t discuss it without censure.

Can we get back to everyday sexism now?
 
Last edited:
Cav said:
Anyone is free to say what he/she/other genders want to say.

If what you say, or the way you say it, offends the Law then said person might be brought to book.
Click to expand...

Not just by 'the Law' though. If you work for a company which regards your words, or the way in which you say them, as not being in the company's best interests, then it may choose to terminate your employment or not renew your contract. Social media is doubly dangerous here; not only do your words potentially reach millions of people, it's very difficult to un-say them.
 
Kris, I'm just wondering since when saying a woman is an 'adult human female' was deemed offensive? I would defend almost anyone's right to free speech, even a terrorist's. Remember when the BBC used voice overs to get around the governments ban on the IRA? Even though they were terrorists they clearly had legitimate concerns that were worth listening to. But do we really need to censor/censure someone saying a woman is an 'adult human female', that really does take some doublethink. Forstaker's belief that humans (unlike Clownfish) cannot change sex is not only reasonable but has been held up as biological fact for centuries. Apart from this case, simply 'causing offence' is not grounds to censor/censure someone. You talk about 'equality before the law', yet how are we to determine anything if it cannot even be discussed openly? To state that free speech is 'subject to morality' is vague to say the least, morals change, even only as far back as the start of this decade Forstaters beliefs would not have have caused any issues, let alone lost her work.
 
claire.foxx said:
Which is the slippery slope to a tactic hate groups use which results in discussions like “Jews are not human” “black people should be property”, or “Trans women are not women”. The paradox of intolerance: In order to maintain a tolerant society, a society must be intolerant of intolerance. Which is essentially about what boundaries can or should be set in deciding what are topics that can be discussed without censure.

Trans people (among others) are a protected characteristic for a lot of good reasons; we’re a target for a lot of hate groups & the way hate speech operates in this case was she tried to argue her opinions & beliefs are also a protected category. The textbook line of attack is to appear initially reasonable a-la Forstarter’s initial stance that is over time revealed to be disrespectful of human rights & dignity; The tribunal set out to test the validity of her claim that her beliefs are a protected category. The judge looks at the totality of the evidence and found Forstarter’s claim wanting.

tl;dr: If a discussion’s premise is founded on the dehumanising and intolerance of a protected category then you can’t discuss it without censure.

Can we get back to everyday sexism now?
Click to expand...

The Equality Act was set up to stop discrimination against people, on the basis of certain characteristics, such as denying someone a job because of their race, sexuality etc. Forstater didn't actually discriminate against a trans person, she merely discussed beliefs around sex change. What we are seeing is a new version of thought crime. Whether you agree with Forstater or not isn't the issue, the issue is the principle of free speech, this should not be seen in strictly absolutist terms, but as something that should be encouraged and nurtured. Discussion is good. Censorship is a state tool, and is intertwined with control, coercion and err, Mary Whitehouse, the fact that the liberal left especially, has of late used it to further their interests is unprincipled and should be condemned. Equality for Trans people will not be won by fear of censure but by education, which will inevitably involve some heated discussion, and should certainly not mean we forgo science in fear of causing offence.
 
I‘ve repeated several times where your use of ‘science’ is wanting in terms of gender identity & you don’t seem to listen. Other people have corrected you on your misunderstanding of free speech & you don’t listen; you simply say ”thank you” & carry on with fairly offensive terminology couched in superficially reasonable language that seeks to dehumanise & delegitimise; I’ve seen this play out several times elsewhere dealing with ppl using a tactic of “superficial reasonableness” to promote a rebranded & reframed discourse; in this specific case, ideas that seek to delegitimise protections so that trans people can become once again an unprotected target.

“Biological fact that has been held up for centuries”: The thing about science is it’s always developing as our understanding of the universe expands & facts that have been “believed for centuries” are often shown to be wrong or an oversimplification as science marches on, such as the insistence on relying on throwback neo-eugenic concepts to rigidly define what a person’s sex or gender is; because any insistence on rigid genetic phenotypes like XX-alone would remove a proportion of the population of (let us use a term other than cis) “natal women” from the classification of woman. No system of classification that seeks to deny trans women as women exists that does not also harm all women. Again, this has been explained but you refuse to acknowledge this. “Basic Biology” is not going to be your ally here & is amazing how highly adaptive & flexible it is — unlike Basic Ideology.

Your conflation of gender & sex is also problematic (& was discussed in the court case notes which you clearly have not read), The use of dated terminology such as “sex change” (which is not possible, but gender reassignment is) shows there is no investment in learning from the masses of educational material already out there but rather using a tactic of superficially reasonable language that seeks not to educate but ultimately eliminate protections that exist because, despite all the education in the world, there are people who seek to destroy trans people. These protections exist because bad-faith actors want to openly discuss ideas and concepts that are “beliefs not compatible with the basic dignity and human rights of others“ and “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” (not just an opinion but a judgement in U.K. law) & when ppl are reminded of this they claim that their free speech is being harmed, however any basic premise that attempts a normalisation of “trans women are not women” is (for example) a common far-right and Christian conservative gambit & ultimately playings into a bad-faith & false narrative.

tl;dr Protections exist not only to protect trans people from persecution but also any person resembling a bad-faith actor from promoting harmful ideologies hiding behind superficially reasonable language.

Can we get back to everyday sexism now?
 
Last edited:
I’d like to point out something, if that’s ok with TPTB. It’s a trend I find difficult to ignore regarding the form of some arguments, and not the current sub topic itself.

There are a few recurring fallacies that continue to go un-addressed. First is a continual linking of any contrary viewpoint with right-wing elements. It’s a patently fallacious ad-hominem (logically) to associate one group of people with another simply because one of the groups shares a position with the other on one or more points. Someone associating themselves with a far-right element, and in agreement with a point of view of another group, doesn’t invalidate the second group’s entire point of view simply from the tenuous association. Further, someone unaffiliated with any group in agreement with a shared POV also shouldn't be assumed guilty or invalidated in whole by any such association.

The use of the term ‘Transphobic’ is routinely used in a disingenuous hyperbole if one defines the term as a 'disgust or hatred of transgendered people for what and who they are'. I’m not trying to deny people with such feelings exist, but increasingly -any- divergence from a strict acceptance of pretty much any and every facet of trans advocacy receives this label.

I would merge accusations of 'Hate Speech' with this last point, but that’s a thorny one since once person A develops a personal dislike for person B the rhetoric often has hateful under/over tones, but on a personal and not a group level, which is often difficult to differentiate, I admit.

Lastly, the entire argument is mostly one of arguing past one another because the central debated term, ‘gender’, has never been agreed upon with any shared understanding, and certainly not discussed in any philosophical or academic sense.
 
This is because any attempt to deny a trangender person their identity is by law, (in the U.K. anyway) a hateful act.

Transphobia is not “disingenuous hyperbole” you’re an exemplar of being disgruntled because you cannot get away with saying what you like, (having, yourself had posts continually & repeatedly yanked for trying to deny a person their legally recognised identity).

It’s also not ad-hominem when it is clear far-right groups are encouraging canonically non far-right wing groups to do their fighting for them. Republican, Far Right & Right Wing & Christian Conservatives court a small number of vocal transphobes & TERFs & this scoops up people into right wing supported groups without them even knowing it. “LGB Alliance” for example, is mostly made up of straight cis heterosexual people & also gender-critical spokespeople appearing in white nationalist media.

Such groups are playing people against Trans people when all we want to do is exist without attacks & ensure the next generation behind us doesn’t have as shitty a time continually fighting for rights & equalities that we should never have to fight for in the first place. We shouldn’t even need to be a protected category.

Can we get back to everyday sexism now?
 
Last edited:
I don't wish to argue with you, but it helps if we're not misunderstood. I'm not defining 'Transphobia' as hyperbolic; I'm saying the term is used increasingly in a hyperbolic way to label people well beyond the definition most people associate with it (the def. I posted). Again, there's nothing further (topically) I wish to argue. Thanks.
 
There is plenty of philosophical discussion the biggest problem is that many gender critical people simply choose to ignore it & insist on not moving from “gender is a binary” (a largely white-ethnocentric worldview — surprise surprise) or even gendered sexuality and biological determinism, despite a massive corpus of both scientific & philosophical work that indicates otherwise.

I recommend starting with, say Prof. Anne Fausto-Sterling’s “five genders” as a start, her balancing of “particularity” & “normativity” are really well-established concepts that have been discussed since the beginnings of philosophy itself. Stanford’s primer is useful for people studying gender & cultural & historical framing from concepts of binary to pre-postmodern thought: The six genders in the Torah & so on. You could also look at pretty much anything by Judith Butler who critiques the sex & gender distinction on two grounds: “gender realism” with “gender normativity” — & this is even before we lurch into gender performativity & the postmodernists.

It’s incredibly well discussed. You just have to look & learn. If you only want to use a biologist’s view on gender & sex then look to Julia Serrano who holds a PhD in Developmental Biology, Genetics, Molecular Biology, & Evo/Devo.

Can we get back to everyday sexism now?
 
Last edited:
I apologize, because in post 211 I assumed that the context of the 1st paragraph (the trend and "form of some arguments" - in this sub thread) would carry through till the last point made. ie., the last point where I write "has never been agreed upon with any shared understanding, and certainly not discussed in any philosophical or academic sense" I'm referring to this topic in this thread and not the world at large. Sorry for the confusion. I shouldn't have assumed the context would persist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top