It's against my religion to...

[PikesPeaked]

Faith and belief are protected characteristics. This includes lack of religion or belief.

I do not believe that people can change sex.
I do not believe that a male can be a woman, nor that a female can be a man.

I am Jewish.

Judaism forbids us from standing by when another person is at risk of harm.
Judaism forbids us from deceiving a vulnerable person.

Trans ideology harms both young people exposed to it (ROGD) and women in general.

Judaism requires us to treat others with dignity.
Judaism requires us to treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves.

I hold no religion, but I agree wholeheartedly. And all those things you list as your religion requiring/forbidding? To me they are what my sense of morality requires/forbids too. Yet I’m not allowed to mention them publically for fear of being censured.

No, I am free to disagree in public.Just as I am free to say in public that I do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, just as I am free to say in public that I do not believe that Mohammed was the last prophet, just as you are free to say in public that you do not believe that God chose the Jews. What none of us are free to speak are lies and hatred.

Agree 100%.

Criticism of an ideology is not the same as abuse of a person who holds that ideology. if I criticise Christianity or Islam as a religion, or talk about how a point of theology negatively affects women, or interacts badly with politics, I’m not being hateful.
If I discriminate against someone or incite violence against them for simply being Christian, or for acting in a lawful way that their faith requires Then I’m breaking the law (and being an arse.)

It’s vital in a free society to protect people but allow free criticism of ideologies. If we cannot criticise an ideology we are living in the kind of state that hangs people from cranes for blasphemy.

And this twisting of the general into the personal through language is rampant in TRA discourse. Any criticism is turned into a personal ‘you’re erasing me / literal violence’ attack by them and turned around on you.

It needs to be called out every time.

Adding my voice to the comment "I am free to disagree in public".

My religion is gender critical and I am being prevented from practicing that religion by MN who moderate comments that espouse that belief.

Our society should be secular. Anyone should be free to excercise their belief or lack of it within the law of the land.

Nobody should be fearing retribution for following their religion or lack thereof as long as their actions do not harm others and are within the law.
No one should be facing censure for speaking the truth
No one should be facing censure for criticising an ideology, or for raising concerns over potential harm of an ideology.
Compelled speech or affirmation has no place in the uk

Yet criticism of genderism is met with censure. And unless one actively agrees with it one can face consequences. No other religion in the Uk does this. Jewish people are not going around demanding or compelling people to obey and publically affirm tenets of Jewish faith. neither are Christians, Muslims or any other uk religion.

Anyone should be free to excercise their belief or lack of it within the law of the land.

And when the law of the land mandates belief? Mandates expression?

What does a GRC do if not control the expression of people's beliefs? A law designed to 'help' one group by controlling the beliefs of another.

RC here. I totally agree OP. I also have a huge problem with the way that abortion is suggested every time there is an unplanned pregnancy. But to say that on some boards would get me flamed.

'I don't believe in identity politics' may be my new go to.

For me it would be "I don't believe in transgenderism".

I don't believe in any aspect of transgenderism. I don't believe in the concept of 'trans' (when used to describe someone or thing, as what they are actually not - ie the conscious practice of actively lying and misleading) and I don't believe in the practice of 'gender' (conscious performance of sex stereotypes).

I do not believe in any of it.

I believe some people have body dismorphic disorder which focuses on their sex characteristics.

I believe imagining one is the opposite sex or fixating on the objects and actions associated with the opposite sex is sexuality gratifying for some people.

I don't believe people can be 'across' male and female. It is simply not possible.

Agree with you, OP.

Gender identity theory seems to me a religious belief. It mandates a belief in gendered souls and a sense of personal self-ness that's not rooted in the physical body but rather in this soul, which is separate from the body. The body itself comes second, and its role is to express the soul through presentation or alteration. That's metaphysics.

I think when you describe it as a religion that gets heard as an insult - "oh you're saying it's the same as believing in sky fairies and woo!" But it's not an insult. I don't think "religion" is an insult. I have a religion myself, it's very meaningful to me. I think gender identity theory sounds bonkers but people who find it meaningful to them should be equally entitled to hold that belief as I am to hold mine, as scientologists or fundamentalist Christians or Jehovah's Witnesses are to hold theirs. I don't see why this particular belief system should get elevated over other people's, such that not sharing it is "bigotry" and something that shouldn't be expressed.

But toddlertea, if freedom of thought and speech is important to you why is people talking about abortion a problem? It’s not compelling anyone to go that way just to talk about it.

And when the law of the land mandates belief? Mandates expression?

Well... that’s why I’m fighting against this going into law. You’re right - if this does become law, we have mandated belief. That’s not somewhere I want to be headed.

if this does become law, we have mandated belief
Why aren't judges and the bar discussing this? Why aren't parliament discussing this? Why are only three of four journalists discussing this?
Why are companies enforcing this? Why are charities enforcing this? How much money has Pritzker actually got?

It is already law.

It isn’t, yet (? I hope) in the Uk. Gender identity is not a protected characteristic. Sex is, and gender reassignment.
The problem is it’s going to be in law and it’s already being treated like it’s law.

How much awareness is there of this in religious communities I wonder?

Trans ideology is much more popular on the left isn’t it? That’s all it is. When they decided to start protecting beliefs (stupid but inevitable) they had to pick favourites because many belief systems are at odds.

What are the GRC and EA if not laws telling us to believe that people can change sex and the rest of us have to behave as if we believed this?

Yes I think the very words "gender recognition act" say it all. That the nebulous notion of sex stereotypes have been reified and ratified in law.

I don't 'recognise' 'gender' - but there is a law that says I now must.

'Gender' reassignment is more weasel words made law.

It should be called the Sex Falsification Act.

Just as 'gender confirrational surgery' should be called 'sex consealment surgery'.

Confirmation

And for a bit of honesty in the Equality Act there should be a protected characteristic of 'falsified sex' - so people can be clearer about its contradiction and conflict with the protected characteristic of 'sex'.

Your beliefs don't trump anyone else's and it's very unreasonable to expect that they should. If someone wishes to change their gender you are free to disagree on private but they are protected as much as you from discrimination

The problem with this is when the needs of one group infringes on the needs of another group.

hen they decided to start protecting beliefs (stupid but inevitable)

We need to be very clear that beliefs are not protected - people are protected if they hold a belief.

The difference seems to be disappearing by the day.

Surely it's the right to hold a belief that is protected, not the belief itself.

Also the right to act in accordance with you belief, insofar as this behaviour does not harm or distress others.

....But I am galactic emporer and you cause me distress when you fail to grovel.

Yes - the right to hold a belief and live according to it as long as that doesn’t contravene the law or reduce other people’s rights.

We cannot and should not protect the belief itself - Blair actually was trying to bring in a law that did this. I think rowan atkinson was one of the voices against it - pointing out it was effectively criminalising blasphemy. The interview I saw with him was pointing out that vicar of dibley would be illegal. I mean ffs.

That’s where we are headed if we can’t call a man a man. It’s blasphemy laws.

Compelled speech and compelled action.

Now there are plenty of societies that have blasphemy laws and every single one I can think of is a basket case hellhole where I’d prefer not to live.

that’s right, I was incorrect. I just meant that in practice you can’t crotisise/disagree with beliefs/ask people to breach them anymore. It’s not merely a case of protecting people from discrimination for holding a belief is it? It’s about forcing others to respect and accommodate those beliefs. At least that’s the upshot of the implementation.