Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    How is it an insult? I'm sorry, but if a woman decided to be a man and then decided to be a woman I don't feel insulted. It doesn't impact me one bit. In fact, it is absolutely none of my business. And why are you (obviously a man) concerned about how women feel? Can they not speak for themselves?

    Blimey - were you born in 1850 and transported to modern Britain? Do you feel that women need to be protected by you?
    They can and do, follow the debate and keep up. Are you saying I get to have no opinion on the matter? Why?

    And of course you wouldn't feel insulted exactly because it doesn't impact you! What ignorance. Women have been fighting for centuries for equality. The first female toilet in London was burned down by men. Now, men don't need to burn them down, they can just invade them by saying "I'm a woman". Women's oppression which is very much sex based is completely overrun by these men. If "woman" has no objective criteria or meaning, then it's a meaningless term. There can be no "women's rights" if "women" is not defined.

    Btw, you fit the exact stereotype of lefty woke brocialist. Look it up.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    They can and do, follow the debate and keep up. Are you saying I get to have no opinion on the matter? Why?

    And of course you wouldn't feel insulted exactly because it doesn't impact you! What ignorance. Women have been fighting for centuries for equality. The first female toilet in London was burned down by men. Now, men don't need to burn them down, they can just invade them by saying "I'm a woman". Women's oppression which is very much sex based is completely overrun by these men. If "woman" has no objective criteria or meaning, then it's a meaningless term. There can be no "women's rights" if "women" is not defined.

    Btw, you fit the exact stereotype of lefty woke brocialist. Look it up.
    Yep - I probably am a leftist person. You are well entitled to an opinion. I am simply challenging that opinion. It is interesting that you keep diverting the argument away from what it is actually about and now your concern is for women. I don't think women have a problem with trans men. Why? Because like gay men, they don't pose a threat. If you go to a gay bar, you will find it full of straight women because they don't get hit on and can just enjoy themselves. Same too with trans man.

    I am interested to know why you only seem concerned about trans men and not trans women?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Yep - I probably am a leftist person. You are well entitled to an opinion. I am simply challenging that opinion. It is interesting that you keep diverting the argument away from what it is actually about and now your concern is for women. I don't think women have a problem with trans men. Why? Because like gay men, they don't pose a threat. If you go to a gay bar, you will find it full of straight women because they don't get hit on and can just enjoy themselves. Same too with trans man.

    I am interested to know why you only seem concerned about trans men and not trans women?
    Um I am concerned about trans women, not trans men. Do you know so little about this topic that you don't even know the proper terminology?

    And I divert? You are the one diverting...I make a point and you load your reply questioning why I even have an opinion (which it shouldn't matter anyway, who I am is wholly irrelevant to the argument I am presenting).

    Dirty tactics that are used on social media all the time now, both by the right and the left. Accuse the other side of the things you are doing (wrong) yourself.

    E.g. you have not actually engaged with almost anything in my post. My entire argument you ignored, and focused on my reply to your previous distraction argument, "why do you have an opinion", while the rest of your post is completely irrelevant to the previous conversation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Um I am concerned about trans women,
    Ah - so you are concerned about people like my father who is a trans woman. Why so? She is just fine and able to speak for herself. But you are right - I know nothing about it. Having had extensive training about issues faced by trans people trying to live in our society has only made me more ignorant too.

    I wonder if your concern is actually to do with the fact that trans women are effectively challenging your own view on what masculinity is? That is why you find the idea of a trans woman so unappealing? After all, like you say - you don't have a problem with trans men. Why is that?

    The bottom line is that trans people don't have a problem. You do. You have a problem with them. But that is your problem and one you are going to have to deal with. They aren't going to magically disappear because you don't like the way they are. And thankfully for them, the law is also on their side.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k.n.h.)
    Of course I've experienced discrimination before.. :sigh: I just don't agree that using the 'wrong' pronoun deserves a fine or arrest, it's even less minuscule than most of the issues the word 'discrimination' connotes.. (Just to add, if the law were true, this could easily be abused by people claiming a different pronoun of themselves, anyone could do this, and frankly going to court for that would be a waste of time.)
    I remember in the past when people were bullied they were trying to change it by becoming stronger, smarter or something. Now you just punish bullies and left yourself in the same pathetic state. No wonder there are a lot of sheltered people who refuse to change.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chucke1992)
    I remember in the past when people were bullied they were trying to change it by becoming stronger, smarter or something. Now you just punish bullies and left yourself in the same pathetic state. No wonder there are a lot of sheltered people who refuse to change.
    ?? What point are you conveying exactly? :curious:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Ah - so you are concerned about people like my father who is a trans woman. Why so? She is just fine and able to speak for herself. But you are right - I know nothing about it. Having had extensive training about issues faced by trans people trying to live in our society has only made me more ignorant too.

    I wonder if your concern is actually to do with the fact that trans women are effectively challenging your own view on what masculinity is? That is why you find the idea of a trans woman so unappealing? After all, like you say - you don't have a problem with trans men. Why is that?

    The bottom line is that trans people don't have a problem. You do. You have a problem with them. But that is your problem and one you are going to have to deal with. They aren't going to magically disappear because you don't like the way they are. And thankfully for them, the law is also on their side.
    Not concerned for, about.

    And that's ironic, I am exactly arguing for society to accept men in dresses. Rather than calling someone who likes make up, dresses, and heels necessarily a "woman". Do you not notice how you get pretty much everything about me and what I am arguing, wrong? I wonder why that is.

    I have a problem with trans women, because they force their way into female spaces where they don't belong.

    The bottom line is, trans people ARE the people with the problem - they need society to validate them and they are trying to force their way into spaces where they don't belong. And not for long, more and more people are waking up to this regressive left politics. And once all those kids put chemicals and mutilated grow up and want to detransition, there will be even more backlash.

    ps you also still haven't addressed or even acknowledged a single point I have made. So as I said, stay in your bubble, you're bias is nauseating.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k.n.h.)
    ?? What point are you conveying exactly? :curious:
    Who knows
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Not concerned for, about.

    And that's ironic, I am exactly arguing for society to accept men in dresses. Rather than calling someone who likes make up, dresses, and heels necessarily a "woman". Do you not notice how you get pretty much everything about me and what I am arguing, wrong? I wonder why that is.

    I have a problem with trans women, because they force their way into female spaces where they don't belong.
    No they don't. As individuals, we can choose our pronoun. The law also states we can use the toilet we choose. In fact, there is no law that states men have to use male toilets and visa versa. But here you go again - your concern for these poor defenceless women. Who are these women who are so concerned about trans women using their toilets and why have they chosen you ask their spokesman?

    Which points would you like me to address?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chucke1992)
    Who knows
    Lol
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Sorry - I don't understand. What is subjective? We are talking about calling someone he or she. Now in the first instance, you might have to make a guess and if you are corrected then you know exactly where you stand. So you just do that. Now if you want to be really proactive, you ask which pronoun to use. It is no big deal. It is just common courtesy.

    Could you tell me where it is difficult to be consistent?
    I wasn't talking about pronouns. I was talking about hate speech. If we are going to forbid it I am saying it is difficult because what constitutes hate speech is mostly subjective. There is also an issue with society not being consistent about it in terms my examples of the Bible and Qur'an.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    I wasn't talking about pronouns. I was talking about hate speech. If we are going to forbid it I am saying it is difficult because what constitutes hate speech is mostly subjective. There is also an issue with society not being consistent about it in terms my examples of the Bible and Qur'an.
    Agreed to a point but not about the Bible etc. If someone verbally abuses you in the street that is a hate crime. The Bible is just a story that contains violence. There is no real victim in the Bible.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Agreed to a point but not about the Bible etc. If someone verbally abuses you in the street that is a hate crime. The Bible is just a story that contains violence. There is no real victim in the Bible.
    What's the difference between someone handing out a Bible with a bookmark in it with a passage from Leviticus highlighted ('if male lies with male... put them to death', etc.) and someone handing out a leaflet that is hateful of gay people?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    What's the difference between someone handing out a Bible with a bookmark in it with a passage from Leviticus highlighted ('if male lies with male... put them to death', etc.) and someone handing out a leaflet that is hateful of gay people?
    A fair point. I suppose the only difference is that the Bible has been around for some time and ironically, most Christians in this country bizarrely choose to mix and match the bits of the Bible they believe in. But since the Bible doesn't really deal with homosexuality or gender I think it fair to say your two scenarios aren't in the same genre.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    https://twitter.com/PeachesJenkins3/...38636231839744

    Yup, self ID will allow all of those to go into women's changing rooms and showers.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighPlaces)
    Hey all. I'm worried about increased stifling of free speech in uni with the 'no platform' policies introduced. What do you think?
    My other half is always moaning about something political to me yet never says anything to anyone else about it as she doesn’t want to offend or lose friends over it.

    I always reply to her well you are the problem then!

    People have always had stupid ideas and behaviours and it is the use of free speech that allows these things to be discussed and for those behaviours and ideas to be modified.

    No carrying out your free speech is making the human race regress
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighPlaces)
    I rarely believer ANYTHING I read in mainstream media unless there is corroboration.

    This problem is obviously serious enough to have warranted a pretty comprehensive report produced annually by spiked-online.com. Look for yourself before you dismiss this. It's their 'Free Speech University Rankings' project.
    Not their report declares consent classes as constricting 'freedom of speech'. The project pushes some truly toxic ideas.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Oh - not that old chestnut. Telling people to kill all Muslims is inciting hatred. Calling someone "he" rather than "she" is called a slip of the tongue. My students do it to me all the time. Calling someone "he" when they have specifically asked you to address them as "she" is being an arse and discriminating against them because you want to label them "he" when they define themselves as "she" is against the law and rightly so.

    But ultimately it is just common courtesy. You wouldn't call someone Bob when they introduced themselves as Dave. No one puts a label on you. Who are you to label others, free speech or no free speech?

    No, I wouldn't call someone Bob if they introduced themselves as Dave, but I wouldn't expect to be charged with a crime if I decided not too. Outside of inciting violence, you are actually free to label another person whatever you like, that's the beauty of freedom of speech, it's what allows humour and comedy to flourish, as well as what would be described as typical banter.

    If you are liable to criminal prosecution for your speech, then that's not freedom of speech. It is true that free speech does not come without consequence, but that consequence comes in the form of other people exercising their own freedoms to disagree with you, or choose not to speak to you. If that consequence is prosecution then you haven't got freedom of speech.

    I refuse to believe you don't see any issue with people being prosecuted for using the wrong pronoun. Whether on purpose or not, that really doesn't matter, as there is no way to prove whether someone has said something with intent. There is no objective criteria, I'm sure you believe in your right to use whatever pronoun you like? That means you can make one up tomorrow and expect people to refer to you as such, if the possibilities are endless and ever expanding, it's simply impossible to legislate against it. Why would you want to legislate on something that is ever changing and something that no one understands? Your feelings don't matter more than people being wrongly persecuted for using words you don't think are correct.

    The system would be quite clearly open to abuse and you wouldn't accept such gaping flaws in legislation if it wasn't for the fact it made you feel a bit better. What's to stop a student who doesn't like their teacher claiming that they have being misgendered?

    I don't necessarily agree that gender and sex are two separate things either, which I'm sure you find highly offensive.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meadsy2018)
    you are actually free to label another person whatever you like, that's the beauty of freedom of speech, it's what allows humour and comedy to flourish, as well as what would be described as typical banter.
    Well not really. Sure, you can call someone a silly name and make fun of someone but that isn't hatred and fits nicely with your ideal of free speech. There is no issue there at all.

    However, imagine a scenario where a boss decides to call their employee by the name they choose or the gender pronoun they choose. And then did it repeatedly. In my book, that is called victimisation and bullying and in my personal experience can lead to depression, anxiety and a total loss of confidence. Now if this boss were to physically assault the employee, I don't think there are many who wouldn't wish for justice to be done and for the boss to be sentenced appropriately. But if they were to verbally abuse their employee repeatedly to the point where they start to inflict severe mental trauma - well that's just free speech right?

    And I think this is what people don't really understand about free speech. Saying something in the moment, or making a genuine mistake, or making fun for comedy effect - there are no problems with that. But the law exists to protect people who genuinely come to harm as the result of what you call free speech. If we are to have free speech than I would advocate it should be acceptable to freely assault people as we wish. After all, that is what "free speech" does to some of those who are on the receiving end. And for those who say you should just grow a thick skin - they haven't truly experienced what it is like to be on the end of "free speech" directed by many of those around them over a period of years.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Well not really. Sure, you can call someone a silly name and make fun of someone but that isn't hatred and fits nicely with your ideal of free speech. There is no issue there at all.

    However, imagine a scenario where a boss decides to call their employee by the name they choose or the gender pronoun they choose. And then did it repeatedly. In my book, that is called victimisation and bullying and in my personal experience can lead to depression, anxiety and a total loss of confidence. Now if this boss were to physically assault the employee, I don't think there are many who wouldn't wish for justice to be done and for the boss to be sentenced appropriately. But if they were to verbally abuse their employee repeatedly to the point where they start to inflict severe mental trauma - well that's just free speech right?

    And I think this is what people don't really understand about free speech. Saying something in the moment, or making a genuine mistake, or making fun for comedy effect - there are no problems with that. But the law exists to protect people who genuinely come to harm as the result of what you call free speech. If we are to have free speech than I would advocate it should be acceptable to freely assault people as we wish. After all, that is what "free speech" does to some of those who are on the receiving end. And for those who say you should just grow a thick skin - they haven't truly experienced what it is like to be on the end of "free speech" directed by many of those around them over a period of years.
    That'd be bullying, and every single organisation in the country has protocol in place to combat that type of behaviour, we don't need subjective legislation to tackle that problem. And no, the boss shouldn't be sentenced, he should be sacked and removed from his position of power pending a proper investigation, why should he be dealt with by the state as opposed to his employer? That's an example of consequence, if you are employed by someone, there are clear consequences to your behaviour. That's what people like you seem to ignore, we already have sensible systems in place to deal with that you consider to be the nasty side of free speech and we have done for a long time.

    No, this is what YOU don't understand about free speech. Saying things in the moment or as a joke is highly subjective, which is why there is now people getting fined by the state for doing just that. You don't get to decide how a subjective piece of legislation like this is imposed. Take the Nazi dog as an example, the court ruled that context was irrelevant in this instance, which completely contradicts what you just said. You can't legislate on something that is so open to abuse, offense is taken, not given, it means something different to everyone. I could post some statistics about Islam on twitter and get reported to the police for a hate crime, do you think they'd care whether I meant to be offensive or not? There is some clear and obvious cognitive dissonance going on here.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,603

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.