Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    So, all you people voting Yes, would this sign bother you if it was put up by a business owner?

    sign.jpe
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So what you're saying is that we should ignore some people for the benefit of 0 people?

    Unless you can justifiably argue that people will be outright refused access to services due to this bill you're basically saying "We should ignore your beliefs for the benefit of nobody"
    Child X gets a new IPhone for Christmas.
    Child Y wants a new IPhone for Christmas.

    Child X doesn't want Child Y to have an IPhone, because that would mean they both have an IPhone, therefore Child X's IPhone wouldn't get as much attention at school.

    So, according to you, we should support Child X, and stop Child Y from getting an IPhone because that would devalue Child X's. Because he's being petty and complaining that he doesn't get what he wants we should bow to him and his right to stop someone else getting an IPhone is more important than someone elses right to own an IPhone.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You seem to be missing the point, can't blame you, you're only a socialist. Do YOU believe that this bill would prevent people from accessing a class of services without any extra new providers being created? It's a simple yes/no question.
    Are you familiar with rural communities where services only tend to be only one provider? Where BT are the only phone network provider. Or, say, where Translink runs all railways in NI, or the Big Six strangle energy competition?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This reads as a joke bill oh my god
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Also, for practicality, why use a DNA test, aren't you satisfied determining gender via ultrasound?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Ashers is a different scenario, in that case they didn't want to bake a cake which to them was insulting, businesses SHOULD have the right to refuse to bake a specific image, especially since they actually suggested another bakery which would do it. They would have refused to bake it regardless of the sexual orientation of the customers. That's a first amendment issue.

    Refusing to bake a normal cake, because the couple are gay, is discriminatory but not the case of Ashers, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to.
    Now I can see a scenario where I would support a bill that allowed business owners to refuse to make specific products, but I would have to see the bill first and it would have to be heavily stipulated the exacts of it all.. But not this bill that allows gay people to be refused access to hotels, electrical companies etc. just because of their sexual orientation.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    lmao progressives btfo

    See nothing wrong here
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    A bill to make people act as though transgenders don't exist won't make them go away, except for the few hundred extra suicides a year you will have contributed to.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Now I can see a scenario where I would support a bill that allowed business owners to refuse to make specific products, but I would have to see the bill first and it would have to be heavily stipulated the exacts of it all.. But not this bill that allows gay people to be refused access to hotels, electrical companies etc. just because of their sexual orientation.
    Exactly, this is my point, this is why I actually agreed with Ashers in that case. They didn't refuse to bake a cake for a gay person (prosecution argued it was obvious the couple was gay) they refused to bake a cake of an image that they didn't agree with. The Jewish bakery with a Swastika cake in an exaggeration of the same point. A Jewish bakery should be allowed to refuse to make a Nazi cake (especially if they actually suggest another bakery down the road) however refusing to make a normal cake for someone because of their political views is discrimination.

    The Ashers bakery case is TOTALLY unrelated.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    Nay, of course.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    lmao progressives btfo

    See nothing wrong here
    You see nothing wrong with Parliament forcing an international movement to rename itself? With forcing people to undergo DNA tests even if they don't want to? With driving medical care underground for transgender people? As it won't disappear it will just go underground, and become massively more dangerous that it already is, like backroom abortions but worse. You see nothing wrong with the Parliament banning books that mention gender such as the bloody dictionary from schools? And that is just scratching some of the points. This bill is an affront to human rights, to the rights of transgender people, to civil liberties, to liberalism of any kind, to equality and more.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    You see nothing wrong with Parliament forcing an international movement to rename itself? With forcing people to undergo DNA tests even if they don't want to? With driving medical care underground for transgender people? As it won't disappear it will just go underground, and become massively more dangerous that it already is, like backroom abortions but worse. You see nothing wrong with the Parliament banning books that mention gender such as the bloody dictionary from schools? And that is just scratching some of the points. This bill is an affront to human rights, to the rights of transgender people, to civil liberties, to liberalism of any kind, to equality and more.
    Not sure if you've seen him in D&CA but his views are so outlandishly backward and unsupported by reason that it's not worth arguing.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Not sure if you've seen him in D&CA but his views are so outlandishly backward and unsupported by reason that it's not worth arguing.
    Examples.

    I always support my views with common sense, facts and statistics if necessary.

    >has contrary opinion
    >weeeh so backward
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    Examples.

    I always support my views with common sense, facts and statistics if necessary.

    >has contrary opinion
    >weeeh so backward
    When you say you support your opinions with 'common sense' (or when anyone says that), it normally just means they're taking outlandish conclusions as axiomatic. Similarly, people dramatically overestimate the value of statistics in argument - it's quite easy to find statistics which give any argument a nice pat on the back by looking at least superficially related (especially on Breitbart or similarly terrible news sources).
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    When you say you support your opinions with 'common sense' (or when anyone says that), it normally just means they're taking outlandish conclusions as axiomatic. Similarly, people dramatically overestimate the value of statistics in argument - it's quite easy to find statistics which give any argument a nice pat on the back by looking at least superficially related (especially on Breitbart or similarly terrible news sources).
    You still haven't given an example of my 'backwards views'.

    I presume you hold the views you do because you see them as common sense, no? And when they are questioned, you can find facts and figures to support them? Pretty much similar to everyone else. Like I said, I only use stats when necessary.

    Poor effort
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I always think these bills are only posted to stir some **** and to argue a bit so most of the time I don't really care, but when it seems like some people genuinely agree with this, it makes me feel sick lmao
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Not quite sure where to start with this. Just on a practical level, I'm guessing you don't realise that a huge portion of women, especially mothers, would be forcibly re-classified as male under your bill. But it goes without saying that I find this bill to be utterly ridiculous, ill-informed and abhorrent.

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Telling the sex of someone tends to be easy because individuals who try to be the opposite sex tend to be unconvincing
    This, for me, confirms how little you know about this and how little you've thought it through. If you met someone who was transgender and didn't realise it, then by definition you don't know that you've failed to identify them as such. Therefore, you only know about the people you DO believe 'look transgender'. This is an area where anecdotal evidence means absolutely nothing. What's more, if you look at what's happened in America where such discrimination is often legal, there have been many cases of cisgender people being mistaken for transgender ones, and I'm sure vice-versa. Trust me, even as someone who IS transgender and knows a lot of transgender people, you cannot always tell just by looking at someone.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Do you believe every single person in the UK would discriminate on these bases all in the same way?
    No, of course not. But that isn't the point. What's more important is that every LGBT+ person would be discriminated against, and that's totally unacceptable.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    And I thought I had seen the worse this House had to offer.

    Also maybe this is just me but this seems oddly timed since Saoirse:3 just returned, almost as if it was personal.

    Anyway I would sooner pass through the seven circles of hell than the aye lobby for this bill
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    That is not the case, the Speaker can confirm the bill was first proposed to UKIP a year ago but the bill was rejected, it is a coincidence he has returned at a time I was going through old bills that were not submitted to see what can be submitted.
    Well, it's a lovely welcome back present anyway, very thoughtful Nigel That being said, I'd find it a lot easier to believe it wasn't personal if you didn't misgender me: I respect you have your personal beliefs and that they're rather different to mine, and it's not something that upsets me as much as it used to, but referring to people (trans or otherwise) in a way you know they dislike and find deeply uncomfortable is a matter of disrespect - much as I expect you wouldn't be happy with a UKIP member openly referring to a Polish migrant as a dirty job-stealing benefit scrounger even if you completely accept people who see them as such.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Well, it's a lovely welcome back present anyway, very thoughtful Nigel That being said, I'd find it a lot easier to believe it wasn't personal if you didn't misgender me: I respect you have your personal beliefs and that they're rather different to mine, and it's not something that upsets me as much as it used to, but referring to people (trans or otherwise) in a way you know they dislike and find deeply uncomfortable is a matter of disrespect - much as I expect you wouldn't be happy with a UKIP member openly referring to a Polish migrant as a dirty job-stealing benefit scrounger even if you completely accept people who see them as such.
    Using pronouns is not a question of personal choice, it a question of biology, if an individual is a man the male pronouns should be used in all cases. The same applies for a woman but using the periphrastic she has become the norm after the political pressure caused by concerns of a male-centric society.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 12, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.