It's against my religion to...

I would struggle if we came to a point of having to tell outright lies about biological sex in a situation like a courtroom, for fear of offending.

That happened to Maria MacLachlan when she was giving her witness testimony of being attacked by a male at Speaker's Corner. She was repeatedly instructed to speak as though her attacker was a woman in court. In the summing up, her inability to consistently do so was given as a reason for not compensating her properly for the assault.

Interesting discussion. OP, as another person of faith, I agree entirely.

I think genderism is closer to gnosticism and some of the other 1st century ideologies which seperated the soul from the body. Their belief was that essentially the body was bad and the soul was good, and on death the two would be seperated at last and the soul enabled to pass on to purity. There was always that sense that the two were not linked in any way bar physical.

As a Christian I think the opposite. I don't believe in gendered souls, I think we are whole beings. But I respect the right of others to believe what they wish to believe, as long as it does not carry harm to others - and this is the crux of the matter when it comes to safeguarding and women's safe spaces, sport etc.

My beliefs have been torn apart, mocked, derided and hated on more times than I can count on here (I have the tiresome habit of posting on religion and philosophy threads), but I have no issue with such, despite the fact that my faith is entirely bound up with my identity and part of who I am. I could go running to MNHQ and talk about hate speech. There are times the mocking has gone further than my faith and become more personal, but while I think this is more out of order I still believe others have the right to express their beliefs of lack of. If it turned to violence and hate speech, as it does for many faith groups across the world, I'd have a right to go and ask for intervention. But generally the messages are about my beliefs, and so others should have the right to deride them as much as they please, and I stand by their right to do so.

So why then is conversing gently about the beliefs of this particular group known as hate speech or literal violence? Apparently people can't cope with reality being cited, it hurts their feelings. I'm sad they feel hurt, but in possessing a belief one must become robust and allow others to share their thoughts, without breaking down under words which don't attack them personally but simply state facts.

The other thing for me is that as a Christian I have a strong aversion to lying (cf 10 commandments). Therefore I would struggle if we came to a point of having to tell outright lies about biological sex in a situation like a courtroom, for fear of offending. What if this became enshrined in law - what if we weren't allowed to tell the truth, because reality has become so blurred? I don't want to give up telling the truth about observable reality.

I will use preferred pronouns out of respect for a person who experiences gender dysphoria. But I can see things going far further than this in terms of what the public are forbidden from saying and how that law is then upheld

that’s right, I was incorrect. I just meant that in practice you can’t crotisise/disagree with beliefs/ask people to breach them anymore. It’s not merely a case of protecting people from discrimination for holding a belief is it? It’s about forcing others to respect and accommodate those beliefs. At least that’s the upshot of the implementation.

Yes - the right to hold a belief and live according to it as long as that doesn’t contravene the law or reduce other people’s rights.

We cannot and should not protect the belief itself - Blair actually was trying to bring in a law that did this. I think rowan atkinson was one of the voices against it - pointing out it was effectively criminalising blasphemy. The interview I saw with him was pointing out that vicar of dibley would be illegal. I mean ffs.

That’s where we are headed if we can’t call a man a man. It’s blasphemy laws.

Compelled speech and compelled action.

Now there are plenty of societies that have blasphemy laws and every single one I can think of is a basket case hellhole where I’d prefer not to live.

....But I am galactic emporer and you cause me distress when you fail to grovel.

hen they decided to start protecting beliefs (stupid but inevitable)

We need to be very clear that beliefs are not protected - people are protected if they hold a belief.

The difference seems to be disappearing by the day.

Your beliefs don't trump anyone else's and it's very unreasonable to expect that they should. If someone wishes to change their gender you are free to disagree on private but they are protected as much as you from discrimination

The problem with this is when the needs of one group infringes on the needs of another group.

And for a bit of honesty in the Equality Act there should be a protected characteristic of 'falsified sex' - so people can be clearer about its contradiction and conflict with the protected characteristic of 'sex'.

Confirmation

Just as 'gender confirrational surgery' should be called 'sex consealment surgery'.

It should be called the Sex Falsification Act.

Yes I think the very words "gender recognition act" say it all. That the nebulous notion of sex stereotypes have been reified and ratified in law.

I don't 'recognise' 'gender' - but there is a law that says I now must.

'Gender' reassignment is more weasel words made law.

Trans ideology is much more popular on the left isn’t it? That’s all it is. When they decided to start protecting beliefs (stupid but inevitable) they had to pick favourites because many belief systems are at odds.

It isn’t, yet (? I hope) in the Uk. Gender identity is not a protected characteristic. Sex is, and gender reassignment.
The problem is it’s going to be in law and it’s already being treated like it’s law.

How much awareness is there of this in religious communities I wonder?

if this does become law, we have mandated belief
Why aren't judges and the bar discussing this? Why aren't parliament discussing this? Why are only three of four journalists discussing this?
Why are companies enforcing this? Why are charities enforcing this? How much money has Pritzker actually got?

And when the law of the land mandates belief? Mandates expression?

Well... that’s why I’m fighting against this going into law. You’re right - if this does become law, we have mandated belief. That’s not somewhere I want to be headed.

But toddlertea, if freedom of thought and speech is important to you why is people talking about abortion a problem? It’s not compelling anyone to go that way just to talk about it.

Agree with you, OP.

Gender identity theory seems to me a religious belief. It mandates a belief in gendered souls and a sense of personal self-ness that's not rooted in the physical body but rather in this soul, which is separate from the body. The body itself comes second, and its role is to express the soul through presentation or alteration. That's metaphysics.

I think when you describe it as a religion that gets heard as an insult - "oh you're saying it's the same as believing in sky fairies and woo!" But it's not an insult. I don't think "religion" is an insult. I have a religion myself, it's very meaningful to me. I think gender identity theory sounds bonkers but people who find it meaningful to them should be equally entitled to hold that belief as I am to hold mine, as scientologists or fundamentalist Christians or Jehovah's Witnesses are to hold theirs. I don't see why this particular belief system should get elevated over other people's, such that not sharing it is "bigotry" and something that shouldn't be expressed.

'I don't believe in identity politics' may be my new go to.

For me it would be "I don't believe in transgenderism".

I don't believe in any aspect of transgenderism. I don't believe in the concept of 'trans' (when used to describe someone or thing, as what they are actually not - ie the conscious practice of actively lying and misleading) and I don't believe in the practice of 'gender' (conscious performance of sex stereotypes).

I do not believe in any of it.

I believe some people have body dismorphic disorder which focuses on their sex characteristics.

I believe imagining one is the opposite sex or fixating on the objects and actions associated with the opposite sex is sexuality gratifying for some people.

I don't believe people can be 'across' male and female. It is simply not possible.

RC here. I totally agree OP. I also have a huge problem with the way that abortion is suggested every time there is an unplanned pregnancy. But to say that on some boards would get me flamed.

Our society should be secular. Anyone should be free to excercise their belief or lack of it within the law of the land.

Nobody should be fearing retribution for following their religion or lack thereof as long as their actions do not harm others and are within the law.
No one should be facing censure for speaking the truth
No one should be facing censure for criticising an ideology, or for raising concerns over potential harm of an ideology.
Compelled speech or affirmation has no place in the uk

Yet criticism of genderism is met with censure. And unless one actively agrees with it one can face consequences. No other religion in the Uk does this. Jewish people are not going around demanding or compelling people to obey and publically affirm tenets of Jewish faith. neither are Christians, Muslims or any other uk religion.