Trans intolerance is out of control

[rocketpocket]

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/fraser-myers-trans-intolerance-mumsnet/21328#.WuAchK_TXYU

Say it a few more times. I am sure they will change all the law journals to suit you if you just type the same thing over and over over and over on Mumsnet.

Wouldn't it be great if this thread didn't get derailed into a discussion of the Ulster rugby case?

(On which, look, finally Susan and I agree on something!)

"Presumed innocent" is the status a defendant has during their trial, not after it.

Define "offend"
This is what's important.
Insulting someone because of their sex/ gender identity / religion / race etc is offensive. So if/when people are just trying to score cheap points on MN then it is a bit offensive. There's so much to debate without 'well I disagree with HIM look everyone see what I did there. I'm so funny '

But having a debate saying 'actually we need to seriously discuss how/why we have biological men claiming they have menstrual cycles and periods but without blood' is needed and not offensive. Some people may not like that debate, but it is reasonable.

Saying to a religious believer they are crazy and delluded is insulting, as is saying a transperson is 'delluded'. Some may well be living in a fantasy world, some may genuinely have feelings of gender dysmorphia, there's a whole range of experiences, but attacking the person or group is unkind and unhelpful.

But critiquing the basis of a holy book, debating the terms of reference for a religion, discussing thr impact of a religion would be totally reasonable. Discussing personal gender critical views, the implications of GRA, the implications of having newspeak and basic biology redefined etc are all reasonable. Some may not like that debate, but it isn't offensive.

People really ought to (in my opinion) go high. Let the TRA go low and show themselves up.

*deluded

Agree with what Maisy said about offence. However, I meant it in the way that when one person disagrees with another the first person always goes "I'm offended!". Even in cases where it's a perfectly reasonable statement or discussion.

Also concede the point that not guilty isn't the same as being innocent. My point still stands though which is that going after people who have been found "not guilty" in a court of law seems a bit like mob justice.

We need to place our trust in the justice system and if we think that it's failing we need to challenge and change the system rather than going after those that we feel were guilty but found not to be. That won't solve anything.

Also though, if their contract was terminated because of the whatsapp group or whatever then why wasn't everyone in the group let go? There was a lot of misogynist crap going on in that group from a lot of men. I think this behaviour is pretty common among a lot of sports men tbh (and that attitude needs challenging) so they'd probably have a lot of contracts to end...

Imeant it in the way that when one person disagrees with another the first person always goes "I'm offended!". Even in cases where it's a perfectly reasonable statement or discussion
Oh I'm with you on that.
There is becoming a group of people who think any question or challenge of any thought they've ever had is offensive.

@Maisypops

I think the distinction that needs to be made is this:

A) men being "offended" because women say "we have a right to set boundaries, to have privacy, to say no, to meet and talk with each other, to choose our relationships, to have an acknowledgement of our biological realities"

B) women being "offended" because men say "you have no right to any of those things"

People want to claim these are equal and equivalent types of "offence", and they are not.

People also distract with pleas for everyone to be nice and not say mean or mocking things, but that is an impossible thing to achieve, not ever hurting anyone's feelings or never making fun. The issue about fundamental rights and violations. Not wounded egos.

rocketpocket

The system is failing. There is nothing we can do about it. The Secret Barrister wrote a whole book about it which is enlightening and frightening in equal measure.

If I may argue a finer point of law here. In this kind of trial the jury is not only asked to decide whether a victim did not consent but also whether a defendant was aware the victim had not consented.

So even if a victim manages to convince a jury that she had not consented, in the absence of defensive wounds on her or wounds on him from her fighting back, answering the second question is difficult.

On balance, and especially given the completely baffling evidence given by one of the accused, I am inclined to believe her. The jury however may have erred on the side of caution here (given the consequences of a conviction). And I think that is perfectly reasonable for them to do.

It's not the jury at fault IMHO, but the law and the trial process. Which is why the public protested about it.

FWIW I don't agree with publicising the defendant's name in a rape trial. But that's for another thread.

I think all 'cis-women' (I hate that expression) need to self identify as men and start invading 'men's spaces'. And there are still plenty of those. (I wonder if anyone has considered this possibility?) We may then get their backing to oppose the whole idea of 'self-identification' when you feel like it. This may be the only way to oppose it now.

I'm not against transgenderism - I have several transgender friends. I am opposed to the casual declaration of gender, when our world is still gender biased.

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/transclassroom/21331#.WuNO3q_TXYU

Another day, another article!