Worthy of respect in a democratic society

[Lyonesse2020]

I found myself wondering today whether a belief that it is possible for mammals to change sex is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society. If it is, what makes it so? If not, what is the baseline for a belief to be worthy of respect?

I would have thought that a belief so easily rebutted by science must fall below that level but I wonder how often the question has been asked.

Well, I would say the answer is clearly no; but I would definitely be willing to hear an argument as to why it was. If anyone is prepared to advance one?

The democratic society thing amused me, like biological facts could be altered by taking a vote on it 😂

I would suggest that the 'companion' or opposite type belief might read

in a lighthearted way perhaps one could phrase it as...

1. sex isn't real
2. insofar as sex is real it's a spectrum not a binary
3. it is possible for humans to change sex
4. but it never matters

which would lead to a curiosity as to what 3 even meant given 1 & 2 and what all the fuss was about if 4 was true

But I think mostly it seems that the core of the belief system is more like

1. Everyone has a gender identity*
2. The gender identity of a person is always more important than their sex
3. other people should treat you and relate to you as per your stated gender identity including using your choice of pronouns and words (man/woman, boy/girl, mother/father, girlfriend/boyfriend, heterosexual man/lesbian,) to describe you rather than using words which reflect reality as they experience it and relate to your sex. This applies up to and including the point that they're giving evidence against you in a rape trial, trying to explain why they don't want to share a cell or trying to explain how and why your sex is incompatible with their sexual orientation.

• including agender as a gender identity, non-binary gender identities, and recognition that many people might not be consciously aware of their gender identity but would have one anyway (cis as default). Also that gender identities might very well be fluid, and change from day to day.

I disagree with one and two, agree with three as a matter of politeness and respect ONLY up to the point where other things become more important than the trans person's feelings. Which would include but not limited to single sex prisons, having a women's category in sports which is for women only (and an open category for men, transwomen transmen on testosterone, where competing in a mixed sex way was safe enough), giving evidence in a trial, healthcare, clear data collection for the purposes of policy, science and evidence based medicine.

sorry the bullet points have formatted a bit weird

The 5 Grainger tests are that the belief (s) -

• be genuinely held;
• be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;
• be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity and or conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

I convinced that there is probably is some expression of gender ideology (probably better written than mine) which would meet 1 -3, I am not sure about 4 and 5.

That being said treating it as a religious belief I don't share is a compromise I can live with as long as we can get rid of the pressure to 'convert' and have the primary formal meaning of words like woman clear in law even as people are free to use words informally in other conversations.

I think what is worrying in any society is the belief that you can alter biology - the ideology that hold sex/gender can be a choice is quite against nature. Quite how this ideology has become a view that we not just tolerate (which is fair - ie anybody can hold any view) but that has gained standing in law is in my view worrying. Through the acceptance that this is possible young people are confused and adopting courses of action that will have long term consequences.

Calling agender a gender identity is like saying atheism is a religion. It is a nonsensical statement which would people would be able to see more clearly if anyone actually defined 'gender identity' clearly. It is also forcing an identity on someone else which is what trans people purport to hate when it's done to them.

Lots of beliefs that people hold are easily rebutted by science. Divine creation, homeopathy, witchcraft, transubstantiation. That doesn't mean they aren't worthy of respect - though by respect I mean in a live and let live way.

As long as I don't have to agree or to live my life in accordance with those beliefs and as long as they aren't presented as fact to my children in school, I don't care. Believe whatever you want.

The problem here is that it has gone way beyond respect as we would normally give to other unscientific beliefs.

I guess it is no more unbelievable than the belief that bread and wine literally turn into flesh and blood.

I see them both as a matter of faith, however the difference is that I've never had Catholics tell me I'm a nazi for not believing in transubstantiation.

Worthy of respect works two ways. Not trampling over half of the population or having any regard for their needs and space.

Well, quite. That's where the resemblance ends. Religious belief is not forced on anybody, there's no comparison.

test 4 - attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance;

It may well be that there is a form of words that can encapsulate gender ideology in a more coherent and cohesive way than I can manage but I'm genuinely not trying to create a straw man here I think as I've written it test 4 would be a problem and that was my best attempt.

I understood that the reason this was used in the Forstater case is that beliefs are protected under some cases in labour law but facts are not? That this is an artifact of the rules of the tribunal she had to use?

But they aren't going to claim that you can literally change biological sex.

The claim would rather be something like gender identity should supercede biology.

I don't really see a problem with protecting it as a philosophical belief, along with GC views.

You may be eccentric to think that men are now women, but you probably don't deserve to be fired over it.

Holding a belief is possible - we live in a democratic society, however, the belief that you can move from male to female is a new phenomena. Yes someone may hold that view - I respect it but I do not want it being part of education and presented as fact simply because it is a belief. Similarly I do not want the law to recognise this belief. In addition I want to be able to challenge this view without fear - interesting people can challenge christianity, make jokes etc etc but the are not allowed to challenge this view otherwise they are viewed as "phobic."

You would be denounced as a heretic, though. Damned for all eternity to burn in hell.

Unless, what luck, you have enough money to buy yourself salvation!

Disclaimer: I am not at all saying that Magenta is a heretic etc

But the Abrahmic religions are traditional pretty unfriendly towards unbelievers who they consider goyim, infidels or heretics.

The Trans-advocating nutjobs seem just as fervently convinced as any true religious zeelot I have ever seen, so no, I don’t think the belief that mammals can change sex should be respected at all.

Disclaimer 2: I am not saying that all religious people are zeelots, or fanatics, but that the original scriptures do denounce non-believers

I think with the "phobic" thing, people just need to keep pointing out that this would mean an irrational fear or maybe irrational discrimination.

Which would require that they strongly evidence the claim that TWAW, to show the other side are being irrational in rejecting it.

They haven't come close to proving their case, so they can just be counter-charged with smearing people and hateful speech against opponents.

Well quite, I'm not aware of Catholic priests demanding that blood banks accept communion wine in order to validate their beliefs.

It's possible to hold some truly astonishing beliefs without imposing them upon other people.

In the UK we have a state religion, but we haven't had forced worship for a few hundred years.

These days I have nothing to fear from being an open heretic, I can't be an open TERF for fear of losing my job, social ostracism or physical violence.

Exactly this.
I don't care what other people believe as long as they don't impose it on me or other unwilling people.
Their right to swing their arms ends at my face.

Thank you, @howdoesatoastermaketoast , for the helpful and informative post.

I think a belief being worthy of respect means you shouldn’t be penalised for holding it but doesn’t mean you are free to manifest it any way you want nor force others to comply.

IIRC that is the point in the gay marriage cake case. Both sets of beliefs were WORIADS but were in opposition. One party couldn’t force the other to act against their beliefs.

Weren't Maya's gc beliefs found not worthy of respect? So, literally, should be penalised for not kowtowing to the gender ideologists fantasies?

The belief that compelled speech is good is not a belief worthy of respect. (Forcing employees to use preferred pronouns, forcing journalists to report on trans criminals as if they are really the opposite sex, etc.)

The belief that it is acceptable to lie to children in educational institutions, and teach those children to lie, is not a belief worthy of respect.

The belief that women and girls must get changed in front of men, accept men in rape centre meetings and on women’s hospital wards, and applaud men beating women in women’s sports, is not a belief worthy of respect.

The belief that threatening women with violence, rape, and death, is an acceptable response to political debate, is not a belief worthy of respect.

The were found not worthy at first instance but were declared WORIADS on appeal.