Norway criminalises 'transphobic' comments made in private

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sci-tech/norwegians-can-now-legally-change-genders-with-the-click-of-a-mouse-1.3090365

"When I was little I liked to dress up in dresses," she says. "And play with dolls, and so I actually think that I was a girl the whole time."
**

When she was 5, concerned relatives and neighbours said Anna's mother was indulging a dangerous fantasy and accused her of projecting a desire for a daughter onto her son. Norway's child protection services were called. Social workers monitored the family until doctors persuaded the child welfare agency that Anna's female identity was genuine.
"I saw that Anna was different from before she was 3," Oline Myge says. "She wanted to wear clips in her hair and got really unhappy when I cut it."

What about a Ring-type doorbell? A few of our neighbours have these and they will record you if the sensor or triggered by movement (so if you are standing in the hall or pass the door). Big Brother is indeed watching / listening to you.

This is why I will never get an Alexa or similar device. People call me paranoid, but if this sort of legislation is passed in the U.K., whose to say Amazon wouldn't be in cahoots with the government, and create an algorithm to detect "transphobic comments".

A problem is how transphobia is defined. Many of the definitions being used now are so broad and vague that the only way to be sure of not being transphobic is not to discuss trans issues at all:

www.transactual.org.uk/transphobia

Criminalising private remarks = the Stasi.

This has never worked out well.

It's particularly outrageous that this has been introduced but all the other protected categories (or rather Norwegian versions of) do not get this special treatment.

Agree the article could have been clearer, e.g. it's unclear whether the academic mentioned at the end is in favour of or opposed to the change.

Please forgive if someone else has replied about this above but there are moves to bring in the same sort of law here, in England and Wales, as well as in Scotland (where moves to do so are ahead (or should that be behind?) of the rest of the UK).

There is a law commission public consultation on hate crime laws going on now. It closes on 24 Dec 2020.

More detail here: consult.justice.gov.uk/law-commission/hate-crime/

We all need to think about responding to this but I understand it is quite complex...

@SusanKimberly

Omg you all can't be transphobic any more how terrible

How do you tell your husband that you have absolutely no desire to live with, let alone sleep with, his feminised self, that you aren't a lesbian and his new self disgusts you? You want a divorce because he is trans - ooh! You transphobe! It already happens and is being lobbied against - see the somewhat deranged arguments around the supposed 'veto' spouses have when their partner transitions!

Then social media is a different matter again, though Mumsnet really is quite good as a platform for different opinions. As far as I'm aware, it's not possible to block other posters, and so there's always the "danger" (or hope!) that unexpected or unwelcome angles will be uncovered. (Sometimes that consists of stupid derailing, and AIBU pile-ons, but I've also seen some very good, even forensic, questions about issues which might be related, from the Relationshipos board to AIBU to politics.)

For my part, I wasn't explicit enough about linking lightweight/ biased journalism to the media's problems with trust, and therefore with getting people to pay for their content.

God I used to think the Scandinavian countries we’re an absolute Nirvana. I am so glad we live in a country that (currently) considers free speech a democratic right. Lord I hope that continues.

If people can come to Mumsnet, or go to twitter, and follow interesting people, who raise these concerns, why should they pay for "news content" which is a time-suck without... er... actual content?

You've kind of answered your own question with the rest of your comment, where you said That's leaving aside the danger that people will go and consume misleading, even false, content
If all we have is biased opinions, that is a worry and leads to following one sided opinions and sometimes "dangerous" (for want of a better word) or misleading information
So yes, completely get where you're coming from in articles actually need to be just that - articles.
Not half a story that basically say nothing.

journalists should do their bloody job and ask those questions.

Exactly, completely agree

• which is why I said it's a crap half an article that doesn't really say anything but still people are talking about Salem Witch hunts, people looking at you funny, "ask yourself why" (? is that to hint at some big hidden trans conspiracy or something?) etc

[quote SusanKimberly]@Oreservoir care to elaborate on that one sweetheart?[/quote]
Ignoring the other questions?

@Oreservoir care to elaborate on that one sweetheart?

And The bar for prosecution is high, requiring direct incitement against people or language that dehumanises them, she said. So... what about the direct threats against women then? Or is there no prtection under Norwegian law for this.... [waits, not holding breath]

@SusanKimberly oh you trusting fool.

10TheLadyOfShallnott

There is a little part of ancient me that hopes everyone who has transitioned (physically or mentally) gets to be fully and officially accepted as a woman in all words, thoughts and deeds.

If only to watch the scrabble to reclaim penises or want to be a man again when they realise just exactly how the rights of women are being depleted.

Absolutely this^^

Omg you all can't be transphobic any more shock how terrible

‘Being transphobic’ means different things to different people though, eh?
Writing ‘transwoman’ instead of ‘trans woman’ is transphobic, apparently. Refusing to describe yourself as ‘cis’ is transphobic. Not referring to a man with a beard as ‘she’ is transphobic. Calling a babies mother their mother will be transphobic if some people get their way.

So it’s kind of difficult not to be ‘transphobic’ at the moment.

Whatever anyone says it is isn’t it? The onus is on the condemned to prove their innocence. Like what witch drowning.

Why so influential?

It says an existing law is being extended to include gender ID. The law already exists and had sexuality and maybe other things in it.

It also says the bar is high.

However. The idea of criminalising private comments is really worrying and Scotland going down that route as well.

How would it be proved and how could it be used?

If you're getting divorced say one partner could say oh they said xyz at home...?

The article is too light to understand what is actually going on.

Think about use cases, it's not going to be people having quiet GC chats at home, it'll be stuff like:
Kids wanting to transition using it against their "obstructive" parents.
Transitioning husbands using it against trans widows.

YY, exactly.

Grow up and look at what this actually means in the real world. Why is transphobia in its many forms the only issue some people care about?