Is it ok to criticise someone for being gender critical?

[WookeyHole]

I'm rubbish at explaining this whole debate and whilst doing a bad job, a friend told me that being gender critical was not an acceptable position to take. It set me thinking... between her and me I'm ok with her saying that and we have healthy debates about our points of view. But IIRC it's been called protected belief? What does this mean for its use in a public forum?

Ask her why it's unacceptable to not go along with the niche ideology of a small % of the population? Why is this belief the only acceptable one?

Despite the lies and bullshit. 'GC' is the view of the vast majority.

The majority of people do not believe humans can change sex.

No one actually believes a man can become a woman and vice versa.

Would ask your friend what specific opinions she considers ‘unacceptable’.

For example, that prisons and certain girls’ and women’s facilities, services and sports should remain single sex.

[quote hallouminatus]'Alexa, what is the opposite of nominative determinism?'

Inaptronymy?

emmawilkin.com/words-of-the-week-2/2021/11/8/inaptronym[/quote]
From that article

"Okay, on to the candidates for ‘best inaptronym’.

Frank Beard, the only member of ZZ Top who didn’t have a beard

Rob Banks, an officer with Avon and Somerset police force

Peter Bowler, a cricketer who was mainly a batsman

Samuel Foote, an actor who only had one foot.

But the winner for me, is one Jaime Lachica Sin. He was the 30th Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila and also a cardinal which means his official title was… wait for it: Cardinal Sin.

Amazing."

I think it’s as acceptable as criticising someone who believes homosexuality is a sin because it says so in the bible.

Particularly if they’re articulating those views in front of gay people.

It isn't GC people who believe homosexuality is a sin. It's Stonewall. And they have no hesitation in articulating those views in front of gay people.

Exactly.

People dont have to find your views acceptable. I dont think they have to explain why either. Unless they want to change your views. In which case they need to listen first to what your views actually are and then counter them.

I actually think trying to budle up gender critical beliefs as a job lot is convenient short hand but dismisses what some of tge issues are.

I am sure they wouldnt say 'i find most safeguarding unacceptable' Or ' i find making sport safe for its participants unacceptable'

I would ask what they think gender identity actually means, in practical terms. There is no way of explaining it that doesn’t resort to stereotypes or leave it comparable to other personality-types nonsense such as star signs. What does it mean to feel like a woman if you can’t refer to female biology or cultural/societal treatment and discrimination? Once they see that gender ideology is ridiculous, the rest falls into place, and this doesn’t mean that there isn’t sympathy for people with gender dysphoria which is treatable only by transition, but the ideology stuff is damaging and unnecessary.

I don't take the belief stance; I take the scientific and mathematical stance.

You could argue that science is a belief, deeper elements of physics rely more on theory and belief than proven actuality, but we do know the science here, with this situation, absolutely.

The GC belief thing is more an over arching thing around, say, agnostic or atheist v religious.

I don't take the belief stance; I take the scientific and mathematical stance.

You could argue that science is a belief, deeper elements of physics rely more on theory and belief than proven actuality, but we do know the science here, with this situation, absolutely.

The GC belief thing is more an over arching thing around, say, agnostic or atheist v religious.

discussion with said friend was driven by lots of info from Mermaids being shared at work

Does this workplace have responsibility for children?

I don't take the belief stance; I take the scientific and mathematical stance.

I agree. I'm glad the GC view is a 'protected belief' in that it's important that people shouldn't be able to sack GC people for their views, but it's not a belief that people can't change sex, or that gender is based on sex-based stereotypes. It's a fact.

It’s fine to criticise any theory or belief, however from what you say your friend isn’t doing that. They are saying it us unacceptable to simply hold the belief.

TLDR

Facts = transphobia.

Fact.

So yes, people are allowed to criticize your beliefs and they're allowed to tell you your beliefs are unacceptable.

There's only two sexes. That's a fact. Not a belief. The bizarre situation which has lead to a fact having to be defined as a 'belief' in order to stop women being forced out of employment is truly one of the mysteries of our time.

and if they think you're a bonkers transphobic bigot they have every right to tell you so.

And presumably, we also have the right to believe that some people are boggle eyed, science and fact deniers who hate women and we have every right to tell them this?

(A note to MNHQ, if BlueberryCheezecake's post stands, this post certainly should).

OP didn't ask 'is it OK to criticise GC beliefs?' though. She asked 'is it OK to criticise someone for being GC?' I would say no, it is not OK.

Who died and made your friend the high priestess of what's "acceptable"?

Everything is acceptable, as long as it's lawful. Sounds like your friend needs to understand the difference between fact, and opinion.

And understand that not only are GC beliefs perfectly acceptable, they are the Law of the land. She could start by educate herself on paragraphs 111, 114 & 115 of the Forstater judgement.

And please read 243.5, 243.7 & 243.11 of the #ReindorfReport. This is just embarrassing now how people keep being so ignorant of the law, and believe their subjective beliefs and opinions trump objective material reality, and the rule of law.

Send her here

sex-matters.org/

So yes, people are allowed to criticize your beliefs. Yes

and they're allowed to tell you your beliefs are unacceptable.. No.

I can criticise the idea that Jesus is the son of God. I could be in breach of the law if I described that belief as unacceptable. This is covered by recent case law and the EA 2010.

@merrymouse

So yes, people are allowed to criticize your beliefs. Yes

and they're allowed to tell you your beliefs are unacceptable.. No.

I can criticise the idea that Jesus is the son of God. I could be in breach of the law if I described that belief as unacceptable. This is covered by recent case law and the EA 2010.

Nails it really.

I don't agree with or share your beliefs because...... and I may strongly disagree with that bit because.... - fine.

I reject you as an entire person and declare you shunned and evil for holding this belief..... - intolerant and a bit weird really. And yes, EA2010 may come into play.

Thing is: inclusion must be equally applied to everyone. Not just the people you like and whose beliefs fit with yours. My main beef with gender ideology is that it just rejects and dismisses anyone with inconvenient bits to them, and refuses to see them as equally human or to be diverse enough to meet their needs alongside gender based needs. It's fundamentally highly intolerant and sees some people as more important and with more rights than it will permit others to have.

Never going to work, is it?

Rather than GC being akin to a faith belief, I think it is the opposite. it is non belief in a particular faith based ideology So, for me the analogy is would it be not to believe in Christianity, Hinduism or Islam (not exhaustive, just an e.g.). Or follow Jim Jones thing or Scientology? Again just a couple of examples.

If your acquaintance doesn't adhere to Islam, must she believe she is an infidel? Would your acquaintance be ok if someone said that they don't think it is right that infidels are allowed to say
(i) they aren't objectively infidels and don't want to be called infidels, and
(ii) they don't agree with the tenets of a particular belief system?
(iii) Call it out when it harms people (including children). There are many examples of belief systems or orgs based on particular beliefs doing harm.

The way I read the friend’s comment was not simply that she disagreed, but that having the view at all was unacceptable. I agree that all views are up for criticism and interrogation, but views held as being unacceptable in and of themselves are generally viewed as those which would support wide-scale suffering. Things like believing some ethic groups or races are superior to others. Thinking people with disabilities bring no value to society. That sexual activity with children is acceptable.

Obviously, the mainstream TRA view is that this is quite right and GC thought does fall into that category as it is harmful in just the same way. It’s not a view that stands up to scrutiny IMO, and completely overlooks or minimises potential harms to women in making that assignment.

Two things spring to my mind:

1. We aren’t clear enough in pushing back on the way GC is portrayed as hateful and dangerous. I read an article in the FT about Kathleen Stock and the BTL comments were focused on whether it was ok to hold ‘anti-trans’ views. This appears to be a mainstay of this debate, but, while it may be an interesting question, it isn’t really pertinent here. There is a much more fundamental question about why and how GC views actually are anti-trans. Is it really anti-trans to conceive of what makes someone male or female based on different criteria to gender?

This is one -phobia or -ism that doesn’t seem to need to include viewing another category of people as inferior or passing any value judgement on them in order to be hateful. Simply having a different conceptual framework is sufficient. I can’t think of any equivalents with other movements - can anyone?

1. The (seeming) arbitrary nature of why this particular viewpoint has become so unacceptable. There are other things in society that cause clear harm where civil disagreement is still the status quo. Take animal rights. We know that human use of animals causes immense suffering, but anyone who criticised a friend for not being vegan would be seen as an insufferable loon. It’s not socially acceptable to judge people for non-vegan dietary choices, despite everything we know. I’m not writing this as a vegan, btw, and I often wonder why a large swathe of society would view me as untouchable for thinking being trans does not actually put you into the same category as someone of the sex whose associated gender you identify as but me eating eggs, fish, etc., is perfectly fine.

A friend telling you something doesn't fall under the equality act so that is irrelevant, the only way the equality act being relevant is if the friend was your employer, or a service provider providing you a service, then being treated unfairly because you hold gc beliefs. The equality act is for service providers and employers not to discriminate, it doesn't cover friends discussing stuff outside that setting.
I agree with the above point 1 that gc is just anti trans as it's sole focus revolves around the existence of trans people and their inclusion in society. GC is a separate protected beliefs group so pushing for gc spaces wouldn't be seen as anti trans.

@anaily

A friend telling you something doesn't fall under the equality act so that is irrelevant, the only way the equality act being relevant is if the friend was your employer, or a service provider providing you a service, then being treated unfairly because you hold gc beliefs. The equality act is for service providers and employers not to discriminate, it doesn't cover friends discussing stuff outside that setting. I agree with the above point 1 that gc is just anti trans as it's sole focus revolves around the existence of trans people and their inclusion in society. GC is a separate protected beliefs group so pushing for gc spaces wouldn't be seen as anti trans.

What?

So you're saying that women's rights/safeguarding = anti trans.
Which by extension would have to mean trans = anti women/safeguarding

Is that what you meant to say? Because it seems a bit.... extremist?

And no such thing anywhere in law as 'gc spaces' and no one has ever at any point suggested (yet) segregating spaces by current political loyalty.

Single sex female only spaces, yes. Named and provided for in law, and without access to which many female humans are excluded. This is an issue, yes?

Unless you're politically pro male supremacism and so believe male people's needs and access matter, but female people's don't because of their biology? I thought this was supposed to be a view of biology not being a thing?

So very tired of the whole 'you are disgusting for wanting female people's full needs met as well as and alongside male people's full needs. It makes no sense. This view isn't the extremist one. It does not wish harm on anyone or seek to leave anyone without care and provision; it just says everyone gets equal consideration to their needs. Including females.

To have a problem with this and call it names does come down to seeing female people as a subordinate race based on biology. There is no other way to explain it.

But while I vigorously disagree with your views and can explain exactly why, I still have no problem with you as a person. Because that's how grown ups manage to disagree.