Permanently banned for ‘promoting hate’

[RumAndReisling]

Following ten years uneventful membership of a major social media site I have been permanently banned for ‘promoting hate’.

Never again will I be able to participate on that site.

My crime? Saying that if you had given birth to a child, there was no way you could literally change sex and produce semen to father one.

Is this not a statement of fact, or is this now unacceptable to say?

AIBU to say that my husband isn’t able to give birth?

I agree. I too would not be able to go along with calling a man 'she' and vice versa. It's not something I would be comfortable with and it's not true.

@KentuckyFriedChicken83 I said almost exactly that on another thread today and you had a real go at me. Make up your mind.

Apogee if I misunderstood.
I have said quite clearly that people should have a right to not call a man 'he' if their biological sex is a woman. And I believe that's the same whether in a public debate, to strangers, or to friends. But we also, as a society, should be respectful to each other on a personal level. Without that society breaks down. Most people are polite and respectful. They don't want or intend to give offence. But that doesn't mean they'll let their rights be overruled.
I've read quickly about Veronica Ivy/Rachel McKinnon. In a social setting I'd call them Veronica and 'she'. But that doesn't override my view that they are biologically male and I'd fight them in any situation where they're trying to get included in female sport, etc.

Apologies, but you'll have to refresh my memory. I don't recall.

@KentuckyFriedChicken83 on the thread about telling the grandmother-to-be the "gender" of the baby. At 14:12 you were insisting that sex and gender meant the same thing. Even though lots of posters (including myself) were saying that sex is a fact, whereas gender is to do with crap stereotypes, and the difference is crucial.

I don't understand how my comment on here contradicts that?

What if the trans man is the parent who didn't give birth? Is he a mother or a father?

I don't necessarily agree with your word 'lie' but I'll carry on using it because I understand your meaning. We collude in lies all the time. When people talk how brilliant their children are, for example, and we know they're not. We don't point out their flaws, we politely go with the flow.

I don't understand what you mean about agenda. Some people just feel, for reasons I admittedly don't understand, that they were born with the wrong sexed body. But just because I don't understand how that feels, doesn't mean it's not real for them. There are lots of ways that people live their lives that I don't understand. I respect them as much as I can. If it makes their lives more pleasant by me calling them he or she, I'd happily do that. It doesn't mean that I believe their rights trumps those of people living as they sex they were born. But I don't want to make my friends life worse by dismissing something important to them.

I don't know for sure but would imagine it would depend on whether they had a GRC.

Sure. That's all you said. Sure.🙄

Nope, that's the beauty of the free market. Private entities, regardless of their size, are allowed to set their own terms & conditions when it comes to use and entering into agreements / contracts, providing they do not breach any legislation when doing so.

The counter arguement that companies should be forced to work with people they do not want to work with, or that they must allow views they do not agree with to be aired on their plaform, is far more Orwellian than any enforcement of a company's T&Cs.

If you want a social media platform or bank that is bound by law to cater for all you'll need to campaign for a nationalised version to be created or set up your own organisation a la Telegram, BSAL, or Triodos, but even then there will be limits to what you can do.

On a wider point it's probably worth remembering that, in general, companies are there to make a profit and will either cater to the widest audience possible or to their most valued stakeholders. If you find yourself consistently in a situation where your views are not aligned to how major companies operate you may just have to accept you hold a minority view that may not be welcomed.

No one is entitled to a platform to share their opinions and no one is entitled to share their opinion without consequence. The sooner social media users, especially those who comment under their real names, realise this the easier their lives will be.

Don’t people get a bit bored by the manufactured outrage? It’s the same comments over and over, ‘woke’, ‘at least he knows what a woman is’ rinse and repeat. I’m actually gender critical but this kind of stuff does nobody any favours.

I maybe expressed myself wrongly. I'm not saying that that is illegal now. I'm saying it should be illegal. I have no problem with a company that have plentiful competition banning people. But if you're positioning your company almost to have a stakehold in the country, with the aim of becoming a monopoly, then the rules need to be different.

Banks might make you sign T&Cs but ultimately you have no choice about what you sign because we all need a bank account to survive. That's the same with some of these large sites. If you've manoeuvred your company into being used for business meetings, then by banning someone from participating in team meetings, you could be effectively firing them. That is too much power for companies like this to hold. We're effectively allowing unelected people to govern and control what people are allowed to say. What happens they make speechless anyone who criticises them? Or decides what parties are allowed to be spoken about, and those that must not be talked about? How is that different from Chinese controlled state tv?

That's a million times removed from any idea I've heard of a free market.

However, someone born a woman can change their gender identity to male and even have a sex change operation to become more physically male.

Male is a sex. Gender is not the same thing. There is no such thing as a male being "more male" than another - in fact it's a little offensive.

People really need to stop mixing up sex and gender. The distinction is important.

that's the beauty of the free market. Private entities, regardless of their size, are allowed to set their own terms & conditions when it comes to use and entering into agreements / contracts, providing they do not breach any legislation when doing so.

Denying service on the basis of a protected characteristic - and gender critical beliefs are so protected (Forstater) - breaches the Equality Act.

What minority view are we talking about here? Op didn’t express a minority view.

I don't necessarily agree with your word 'lie' but I'll carry on using it because I understand your meaning. We collude in lies all the time. When people talk how brilliant their children are, for example, and we know they're not. We don't point out their flaws, we politely go with the flow.

What you're talking about here isn't a like for like comparison. Firstly, the example you're using here is about saying nothing, not lying.

Secondly, it is fundamentally a value judgement, not observable material reality. Would we tell a child who is shorter than another that they're actually taller? I don't think so.

I don't understand what you mean about agenda. Some people just feel, for reasons I admittedly don't understand, that they were born with the wrong sexed body. But just because I don't understand how that feels, doesn't mean it's not real for them. There are lots of ways that people live their lives that I don't understand. I respect them as much as I can. If it makes their lives more pleasant by me calling them he or she, I'd happily do that

In the end, does that really make their lives 'more pleasant'? I take big issue with that. I've seen lots of transitioners on social media who are very disappointed to find, in adulthood, that they are not actually accepted as the opposite sex for dating and other purposes. I don't think it is at all in their interests to start to collude in the lie that they will be. So you've got to ask yourself, as I already wondered, whose agenda are you serving?

“So you've got to ask yourself, as I already wondered, whose agenda are you serving?”

I have listened a lot to detransitioner voices. It is as you say. Often when these people start to realise that absolutely none of these treatments, often lauded by other trans people online or in their support groups, have worked, they realise that society has allowed them to believe a lie. I think many of them simply realise there was never any way that they would achieve their goal. That human instinct is irrepressible- humans, children and female people in particular, always identify sex cues in bodies. And very often in socialisation/attitudes.

Even numerous accounts from still transitioned people make this point. That some of them finally realised nothing would make all other humans accept them as changing sex. Sometimes that does lead them to transition again to a non binary identity. Maybe that offers them something closer to a truth they can live with. I don’t know.

Either way, I am coming to see that using preferred pronouns is following an agenda I reject because I see numerous harms. And if people are being told that my avoidance of using their desired pronouns is hate, then that again is the agenda of a group that is creating this impossible agenda that only leads to further deterioration of people’s mental health.

Who ultimately benefits from convincing vulnerable people that people hate them?

”So you've got to ask yourself, as I already wondered, whose agenda are you serving?”

Speaking of serving agendas, last week I followed a thread where a mature male who transitioned young tried to convince women that they were indeed just as much a woman as us. They started out with the ‘I have so much respect for my fellow women type of posts’ that quickly descended into posts driven by their male socialisation and were misogynistic.

They even told us all that being female was just a constellation of data points and this individual felt theirs fitted the ‘female’ data points. While telling us all the stereotypes that lead them to believe they were ‘in the wrong body’. This is a now mature male. And admitted they knew very well their presence in female single sex spaces distressed others, but they were never going to stop using them. Despite telling us they supposedly had lots of empathy.

It became quickly clear what that male individual’s agenda on that thread was.

They also actively campaign for affirming only treatment for children and adolescents, including full medicalised treatments for female children and teens.

Why are we being shamed into using pronouns for this person by others saying ‘what is the harm’ and talk guidelines on MN when there was absolutely zero respect being shown for women and girl’s needs?

@Helleofabore so essentially if you were working with a trans person you'd refuse to call them by their new gender or name ? To their face ? And would that apply to transmales too ?

People have mistaken me for a man multiple times. I have letters addressed to Mr scully. Even one from the police addressing me as mr.

The world didn't stop turning. I didnt spontaneously combust because someone thought I might be a man.

Why is it so important that people play pretend? Why is it seen as acceptable that someone lays the responsibility of their mental wellbeing onto others instead of seeking help to come to terms with the reality that triggers them. Its their job to learn to deal with who they are and what they are and reality around them. Its not everyone else's job to participate in their delusion.

What is a transmale please?

Don’t people get a bit bored by the manufactured outrage? It’s the same comments over and over, ‘woke’, ‘at least he knows what a woman is’ rinse and repeat. I’m actually gender critical but this kind of stuff does nobody any favours.

We are "bored" of our rights being taken away

I did not say anything about names.

Can you tell me what third person pronouns would I be using ‘to their face’?

Would you use someone’s chosen religious honorific if you are not part of their religion? Or just speak to them directly using their name? Why? And is it respectful for a religious person to demand this of an atheist?

Can I assume you think I am what? Rude? Disrespectful?

Why? Because I think respect goes both ways?

Seems to be an issue that you yourself have around respecting people’s boundaries. Pronouns are based on sex. I choose not to validate gender identities by pretending that the impossible has happened. A trans person is a trans person and deserving of the same level of respect and dignity as all people, including myself. They deserve to not be discriminated against for having their identity except where sex matters for the protection of women and children.

Why is their boundary deemed more important than mine by you? If I have interpreted your question correctly.

Just for context, I am pro women’s rights and probably would be classed as holding gender critical beliefs (which is ironic really considering my job).

But what you have posted here is factually inaccurate.

Where a person undergoing gender reassignment is compared to someone who is not, that is covered by direct discrimination in the EqA. But that isn’t the only type of discrimination covered!

GR individuals are also protected from indirect discrimination (which could cover a requirement to use specific sex changing spaces) and harassment or victimisation depending on context (others failing to use their correct pronouns - which would probably only apply in the context of employment, or the provision of goods and services).

But the EqA DOES protect GR in the examples you gave. I say this because I believe that people holding gender critical beliefs are more likely to be taken seriously if they understand fully the law and reasoning behind those beliefs. But putting forward legally and factually incorrect information won’t help the cause and is more likely to damage it.

There is an interesting counter point to this too though after Maya v Forstater which means that gender critical beliefs can potentially be protected in law under the religion/belief discrimination legislation in the EqA - provided that they are not manifestly inappropriate. So ultimately where there is a clash of two protected rights, provided that they aren’t “manifested” in an inappropriate way, there should be some protection there at least.

I would take that to mean that you should use a persons chosen pronouns, as that applies to gender, but expecting to recognise that person as a biological male/female should not be required. But harassing them over it would still be unlawful.

And I suppose theoretically that if you held a genuine and appropriate belief that single sex changing spaces should cover biological sex only, with good reasoning behind it (not just the blanket “but they are menz and I might get raped”) then that could be covered too… although from a public policy perspective I can’t see that right trumping trans rights, as much as I personally disagree with that.