French Campaigner Dora Moutot - court case over comments on sex and gender rights

The names change but the posting style (and ‘arguments’) noticeably do not. Seems a pointless endeavour to me to pretend but I remember we also had a poster like that who was omnipresent on FWR during the election campaign of 2024 🤷‍♀️

I'm not in slightest confused. You are referring to 'harm' as anything which causes personal upset, discomfort or the stress of disagreement. That is a ridiculously broad definition.

As a society we seem to have nurtured an inability to cope with the 'slings and arrows' of everyday life; a lack of emotional resillience, and a consequent unstable and very fragile sense of identity. One which is tied in to having others validate feelings at every turn. A sense that an individual's feelings are the only real or valid truth about anything.

Feelings, though, are not the same thing shared truth or common reality. Feelings are not stable; they are like weather systems; they come and go, they shift and morph. a strong and secure identity is not rooted in feelings; it is rooted in a recognition of the the 'centre' - the point of stability around which all else revolves. This self does not have a gender, it does not have a sex either.....it just is. It is the integrating centre of the personality.

'Gender' is ultimately a meaningless, shape shifting term. Even using your own construction of it, all it means is 'stereotypes and cultural associations' - and those are not fixed items. They vary according to who is naming them, the society in question, and the period of time. These associations don't describe or align with Sex, and they are not applicable to everyone, all of the time, in a sex category.

If people want to express'gender' ,as you call it, there is nothing stopping them ( in our society, anyway), but as far as I can see all that amounts to is a quirky or individualistic expression which seeks to mimic certain sorts of performances and/or costumes. Judith Butler calls this " the performance of gender".

There is nothing new about this - people have been playing with such presentations and performances for a long time. Long before it was turned into a whole theory of identity.

May I ask a favour, celavieee?

I'd love to read the French judgement in full, as you suggest.
I've read extracts from it online, and it looks worryingly confused about what gender is and what sex is, and more broadly, French law seems to conflate homosexuality with transgenderism, although they are two very distinct things.

Claude ' l’un et l’autre se dit ou se disent' Favre de Vaugelas must be turning in his grave at such imprecise use of his beloved French language!

But that's only from extracts, and like most posters on this board, I like to go back to primary sources, so could you please post a link to where you read the judgement, so I can read it in full too?

Thank you for posting a link to this article, which is quite supportive of Moutot, pointing out for instance that
She explicitly clarified that she was not suggesting all transgender people engage in such behavior. [against women]
and
the term “people with penises” is borrowed directly from LGBT activist vocabulary. A brochure from Fransgenre, an association dedicated to helping people change sex, describes trans and non-binary people assigned male at birth as “people with penises having relations with other people with penises.” That document carries the French government’s Information Jeunesse label, allowing it to circulate in facilities serving minors.

I was able to access it directly by entering the link in your post into
Skip the Paywall — Read any article for free
The cookie consent stuff in your link is in Greek, because the source is Greek.

I recommend the article, it is a good antidote to the idea that Moutot was spouting anti-trans statements
It looks like she made some reasonable statements in what seems to be reasonable language, but that somehow becomes 'hate speech' in some people's minds,cf JKR🙄

It's dangerous when reasonable factual statements couched in reasonable language become 'hate speech' in the eyes of the law.
As the article says:
Moutot’s supporters argue the conviction represents a dangerous precedent that criminalizes factual statements about biological sex and threatens free speech on matters of public concern.

Thanks for the link, celavieee.

It's a bit tricky to donate. As it's in French but if you scroll down you get to some English

Her name in gofundme brings you to a garden with space for new planting..

Howse your argument about behaviours and personality traits being reliable criteria for sex categories of humans work?

Is there crowd funding or has she got backing?

... women ...

Yes, indeed. Why do men who claim to be women do often hate disrespect women?

I'm not sure I understand this - do you think that I don't understand that threatening to cave a TERF's head in or fuck them with a broken bottle are threats of violence and incitement to violence?

What I admit to not understanding is how trans activists get away with grotesque threats and incitement to violence against women.

Have you found any examples of a similar level of violence and actual physical harm being threatened against transpeople? Is there an equivalent to
TERF is a slur | Documenting the abuse, harassment and misogyny of transgender identity politics?

Why the fuss? Why the aggression?

Because they can, and they want to. It's what they do.

OK, so it's gender.
'Socially-constructed behaviours and roles associated with biological sex, ie. being a woman, man, girl or boy'.

Lots of people - like me - refuse to conform to the expected gender behaviours and roles associated with our sex at birth.

How do you make the leap from that, to a movement based around demands to be treated as if you[one] had changed sex not gender - the very clear, very unambiguous statement that 'TWAW/TMAM'?

'Trans women are 100% women' 'I am as much a woman as you are' ' How dare you suggest that I am not a real woman' 'Dividing transwomen and ciswomen is misogynistic' - these demands do not reveal people rejecting socially-constructed gender stereotypes pertaining to their sex at birth, they are actually demanding to be treated as if they were the opposite sex.

They even go so far as to co-opt the very words that define the sexs, resulting in the mind-blowingly irrational situation where a dictionary definition of 'woman' as adult human female, is regarded a hate speech and transphobic.

If it was just about gender, woman=adult human female, man=adult human male would be entirely uncontroversial statements, it would just mean that some adult human females and some adult human males reject the socially-constructed behaviours and roles associated with their biological sex.

No big deal, no need for legislation, no need to hijack the lesbian and gay movement, no need to obsess about what toilet to pee in, no need to try to control what kind of pronouns other people use, no need to threaten women with rape and death for holding on to the meaning of 'woman'.

Just get on with rejecting socially-constructed gendered behaviours and roles associated with biological sex. Why the fuss? Why the aggression?

Perhaps read the french judgement again for a better understanding of why saying 'sex is real' isn't the harm rather the denial of gender identity is.

You are confusing two separate issues.

What you don't appear to understand is both threats of violence or incitement of violence is harm under the law.

No confusion at all. "Gender" is meaningless, sexist drivel

Give it a bloody rest.

More confusion. No one is saying "tendencies" change sex. The context is gender.

Again.

Nobody here is "confused" at all.

Except you, perhaps.

We understand perfectly, thanks. Not sure why you keep on making this silly claim. That's THREE times now. On top of the Nazi slur, of course. Do you think this tactic will win you an argument? I'm afraid you're dealing with women who've been arguing against this bullshit for many years. "Confused" we are not. Even if disingenuous gaslighty type people like yourself would like to pretend and handwave away solid arguments by claiming that the silly little wims just don't understand the reality of their own lives like gender theorists and men pretending to be women do...

Surely even you must have enough objectivity to accept that the death threats, rape threats, 'punch a TERF', ''decapitate a TERF', 'die in a grease fire' etc etc have only come from one side, and go way beyond 'mean words'.

The idea that 'both sides are as bad as the other' has been disproved a hundred times over, the evidence is out there. For instance on TERF is a slur | Documenting the abuse, harassment and misogyny of transgender identity politics

I'm not referring to disagreement as 'hate' though. The conduct of the trans movement and of its allies has been measurably injurous to many people. Those who have been banned from personal interest forums; from their trade unions; from their CLPs; from their jobs; who have been side-lined at work.... are continually referred to as 'bigots' or 'nazis', or as 'hateful' simply for saying that the concept of 'gender' does not over-ride the reality of 'sex - and that males are not women.

Oh really? Like the "upset feelings" as a result of 'mean words' by trans activists to gender critical feminists?

Can't have it both ways.

When the meaning of 'harm' has been enlarged to the extent it includes upset feelings, or the stress and anxiety of repeated disagreement then everything is potentially 'hateful'.

Nobody is suggesting that there aren't some tendencies which arise as a result of one's sex. It would be ridiculous to think there weren't. But having a tendency or preference for something socially/culturally associated with the opposite sex does not make one into that sex. Also, plenty of evidence to show that sex based/shaped tendencies remain even after transition to another 'gender'.

You are very confused. Hate speech is censured because it's harmful not because it's offensive. On the other hand, minimising harm to 'offence' isn't always the result of confusion but a very deliberate strategy.