John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

TRA say these things all the time and barely anyone bats an eyelid.

And the lies just keep coming, thick and fast.

Yeah, my jaw dropped there but can't say I'm surprised. More proof of 'alternate universing' for convenience.

Speaking of magical words, are we calling them "magic" only if they were said involuntarily or just in general. Because if the latter, and words aren't supposed to offend (as we know, "offence isn't given, it can only be taken"), I can think of some words we should no longer be offended by here and stop asking mnhq to ban the use of: Karen, terf, cis, etc. You know, those slurs we can't quite manage to see as 'just a word'.

They are just words.

You are kind of proving my point.
You are happy to type them. What, pray, is the difference between those and the N-word? What can't that one be uttered (or typed) in full?

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'semantic defence'. The defence of what?

And fail to see how the fact that a word is a word so difficult to accept.

Cis
Woman
Terf
Bitch
Hag
Crone
Karen

Look at all the 'just words'.

I'm still incredulous that there is anyone who actually doesn't believe that a word is, sometimes, just a word.

I look forward to you using the semantics defense against the Tra's as they try to linguistically rewrite what it is to be a woman.

So according to you and others on this board:

Sex based rights = legal standing, respect, consideration, empathy = Legitimate
Race/ Ethnicity based rights =no legal standing, no respect, no consideration, no empathy = Illegitimate/ optional

Perhaps the board should simply be renamed Empire-Based Feminism: Sex and Gender.
It would more accurately reflect the perspective some posters bring. It would also spare Black women the tedious job of wading though pages of posts to work out whether we engaging with people who consider us equals or with those with a more colonial mindset.

TRA say these things all the time and barely anyone bats an eyelid.

And the lies just keep coming, thick and fast.

Whether a word is taboo to a Black Woman is for them and those in their community to decide.

"“The events this weekend exposed a couple things institutionally...We still don’t understand what inclusion means; just because you invite someone into a space, but you don’t provide the necessary resources to keep them and everyone else in that room safe by them being there, that’s not inclusivity. That’s exploitation. That man’s disability got exploited that night, and it led to multiple offenses. That’s the BAFTAs’ fault.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniesoteriou/jayme-lawson-wunmi-mosaku-praised-n-word-baftas-comments

Gosh that's quite something, judge. But relieved to see sense prevailed in the sentencing.

likely to be intensely painful and shocking

I'm still incredulous that there is anyone who actually doesn't believe that a word is, sometimes, just a word.

No, we don't have to imagine because TRA say these things all the time and barely anyone bats an eyelid. The 'response' is generally that organisations comply with the TRA and expunge any words from their policies that might imply that sex exists.

These things are clearly not unsayable. They are wrong and we will argue back, right up to the Supreme Court if we have to, not because what they say is hurtful but because policies based on their arguments destroy our rights. But they're perfectly free to carry on saying those things.

Whether a word is taboo does not depend on whether it is hurtful or not, or whether the hurt is acknowledged or not, it depends on whether the word is sayable or not.

I don't know what you mean when you say 'magical thinking', it doesn't seem to relate to what others here mean when we talk about 'magic words'.

Harassment is defined by its effect on the victim. It is not defined by the intent of the perpetrator.

This is not quite right. Harassment is unwanted conduct related to a PC which has the purpose or effect of violating someone's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

If someone deliberately tries to harass you but does not succeed, the fact that the purpose was there is enough.

If the unwanted conduct has the effect of violating your dignity etc. it doesn't matter if that was not the purpose, however 'effect' does not only depend on the perception of the person being harassed but also on the other circumstances surrounding the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

Harassment claims are always highly fact-specific so hypothetical analogies are rarely helpful.

Ah, so now we're getting into the, "but some Black people are using the N word taboo against white people maliciously! Like in these three isolated cases," argument.

It's like saying, "but some women are conniving bitches who lie about being raped."

Does it happen? Yes.
Is it incredibly rare compared to the opposite issue (racism/misogyny)? Also yes.
Is it a somewhat DARVO kind of move to use that as a defence? A little bit, yeah.

Agree that the potential trauma of a minority of people cannot be the basis of how human behaviour is structured in a society. It's simply not practical.

I'm not sure that's a sound argument, as could you not then argue that there are far, far more people offended by Tourette's coprolalia tics than there are people with coprolalia (1% of people have Tourette's, and only about 10 to 30% of them have coprolalia), and therefore it's not practical to force everyone to accommodate them?

And wow. I'm not sure that people being bothered by the N word is an example of the decadence of society... I'd say Jeffery Epstein and all his cronies are a great example of that. But Black people being bothered by the N word? Mmmm...no. That's a sign of not liking racism, not a sign of societal decadence.

It's taboo words and actions, with an almost ritualistic quality. Its about history, current reality and power.

Imagine the response to a trans woman telling a biological woman that words like “mother,” “female,” or “woman” or "breastfeeding" are “just language” and that any hurt at their redefinition is magical thinking or ritualistic taboo.

Oh wait! Just remembered, I don't have to imagine.

Also strong echoes of "Why aren't women's boundaries enough for you?". Apparently Black women's boundaries can get in the sea.

I mean - I guess it is a really good thing you don't have friends or family with a disorder like this, as presumably you would be unable to manage being harassed?

Now - I am sure you will tell me that isn't in fact the case, because understanding the cause would change the meaning of the sounds they are producing. And you are able to reflect on that, even if your initial thoughts and feelings are differernt.

Harassment isn't just about people's feelings in any case, that would be a completely unworkable kind of law.

Yes, you think of the fact that people like MBJ are quite capable of hearing words like that when they are getting paid a lot of money for it; the case of the rapper who condemned a woman he invited up on stage for singing the lyrics of his song which, of course, he knew were there; there was the case in Canada of a very well regarded journalist in a staff discussion around covering a topical story about language use - she was ultimately fired.

It's taboo words and actions, with an almost ritualistic quality.

The irony on this thread is striking. The same women fight passionately for the rights of / against the erasure of women are comfortable erasing the harm Black women are describing and also that of a woman with Tourette's.

This link, below, is humanity and integrity, not the institutionalised thinking demonstrated on this thread time, after time.

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/MNsG0KXtEYg

If you think the N word is magical thinking you are just showing us who you are.

I've often said that 'trans' is a magic word that makes people's brains fall out. It has the power to make people forget everything they know about safeguarding, child development, human biology, male sexuality, criminology, domestic abuse, statistics, medical ethics, sports ethics, health & safety ... and the equality and human rights of everyone else.

We're allowed to say 'trans', in fact it's widely encouraged. What we are not allowed to do is question it. That's when we are punished.

I agree this is another magic word that operates in a different way. It must not ever be said, it must not ever be written (except when magically transformed by the skin colour of the speaker).

There was a case not so long ago of a man who was dismissed for saying the full word in order to discuss it during a training session at work. He was awarded £490,000 for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The judge was extremely careful to preface his full reasons:

5. The tribunal believes the Bank was entirely reasonable to hold the view that
(1) the full N word is an appalling word which should always be avoided in a
professional environment; and (2) even if no malice was intended and the full
word was used not as a term of abuse and not as a descriptor of people,
nevertheless, simply hearing it said is likely to be intensely painful and shocking
for black people because it may well echo other discriminatory experiences in
their lives and because of its history and derivation. Indeed white people might
also be very uncomfortable if the word is used in their hearing.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e88740691aa3000da56dec/Carl_Borg-Neal__vsLloyds_Banking_Group_Plc.pdf

The word is so powerful that even if someone says it completely involuntarily they must be hounded and condemned and threatened and ridiculed across the internet for over a week. No apology or explanation will ever be enough. It never is. Even saying it involuntarily is unforgiveable.

I can think of no other word which operates like this, at least not to anywhere near the same degree.

Exactly, being rude and being offended are completely normal events in everyday human interaction. They shouldn't be elevated to some sort of unbreakable taboo.

Agree that the potential trauma of a minority of people cannot be the basis of how human behaviour is structured in a society. It's simply not practical. Rules exist, as do exceptions. But the exceptions don't negate the rule.

The idea of the decadence of Western society constantly comes to mind lately. Echoes of the decadence and fall of Rome. Even down to the generalised mental malaises. The time comes when a society starts having too much time on their hands, as it were, and it starts eating itself. And here we are.

We don't get to control how other people think. (Or feel). That is 'thought control'. And it is both impossible and very, very damaging to a healthy and functioning society.

What we can do, is through social norms, laws, good parenting and education, as examples, is to encourage people to behave in ways that don't harm others. These behaviours, unlike thoughts and emotions, can be clearly observed and robustly evidenced.

Suppose I were to run a small company and I employ someone with Tourette's who shouts the N-word at his black colleagues, and 'Fat C*/Slag/Whore' at his female colleagues, and 'Paedophile' at gay colleagues.

It wouldn't be the person with Tourette's fault at all. He is not racist, sexist or homophobic. Under the Equality Act 2010, I'd rightly have a duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' to support him.

I also have a legal responsibility for the well-being of the rest of my team, and to prevent them suffering harassment and/or victimisation. As an example, under the Equality Act 2010, I have a duty to protect my employees from racial harassment.

Harassment is defined by its effect on the victim. It is not defined by the intent of the perpetrator. Even if the slurs are involuntary, they can still create a 'hostile, degrading, or offensive environment' for the black, female and gay employees.

As the employer, I would be held legally responsible for harassment that occurs in my workplace if I failed to take 'all reasonable steps' to prevent it.

It IS a balance of rights.

When it comes to the gender woo this has been a deliberate strategy.
It's much easier to eradicate women's rights when you have destroyed the meaning of the word woman.
Ditto the conflation of sex and gender to promote 'affirming' healthcare, aka sterilising confused kids.

Under the Equality act there wouldn't be a conflict of rights here. On the one hand you have a disabled man, he is covered. On the other you have a black men. Being black in itself is not covered under the EA. Racism is covered and protection against discrimination due to racist beliefs. There was no racism and no discrimination here, John was not being racist and doesn't hold those beliefs therefore the black millionaires would not be covered. They are not victims. They may be offended but that's a different matter. They're behaving like children tbh. Any right thinking person would have told John not to worry and moved on with their lives.

The assurance that something terrible will happen when the word is invoked, totally apart from any context, is magical thinking.

I don't think that's why a lot of people don't like hearing certain words? No one is thinking that anything terrible will happen if the word is invoked.

It's more that the word is a sharp, intrusive reminder of the dehumanisation of an individual and demographic - and of the reality that many people still see that demographic as less than human. "Hey, you're not properly human, by the way - just in case you forgot about that, we thought we'd remind you."

This works for both certain racial slurs, and misogynistic slurs, where that demographic has been systemically dehumanised and objectified by those in power, suffered with less rights, and still doesn't have equality.

I don't dislike the word 'bitch' because I think something bad is going to happen if people use the word 'bitch', and I don't dislike it because it's rude - who cares about rude?

I have a deep aversion to the word because it is a reminder of the knife's edge that women as a demographic live on, where our 'rights' are in fact privileges that could be taken away at any time, and a good portion of society - including other women - see us as less than men; barely even human. It is a repulsive word when applied to women.

Nothing to do with magical thinking or rudeness.

Yes, this is a very good explanation.

A word so potent that simply seeing it in print has devastating effects, so it has to be bleeped out.

We now also have words where, even though they were never slurs as such, or even rude, they are now forbidden because they somehow remind people or other bad words.

The assurance that something terrible will happen when the word is invoked, totally apart from any context, is magical thinking.

I think the idea that it's all about trauma is a distraction. Yes, there are people who are traumatised, but we don't, and can't, structure society around those who have that level of traumatic response, that is why trigger warnings are not really very useful. Trauma isn't the reason we don't swear at people in public, (and it's not the reason we don't have men in women's private spaces, either.)

We don't shout racial or other slurs at people in public because it's fucking rude, to the people being shouted at and everyone else as well, because of the meaning of the language. On the other hand, we might have a film like Sinners, where we can hear the exact same words, and the context means it isn't rude in the same way, it's part of a story.

Thanks for the link @UtopiaPlanitia , very interesting.

Personally, I take 'magical words' in this context to be those that take up a disproportionate amount of space in people's consciousness.

A word, any word, is still just a word. A word that no one dares to even utter in a metalinguistic context (i.e. say/write a word so you can discuss it) is one such magical word, I'd say.