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.

Ah, right. The fact she had to appeal the initial verdict is mind blowing, though.

I suppose the way to test it would be to fire a TRA.

( I have a couple of colleagues I would happily nominate.)

I suppose the way to test it would be to fire a TRA.

Preferably from a rocket.

Beliefs aren't worthy of respect. People may be in a democracy. And so although I think religion is a load of old cobblers, I am respectful to believers. As soon as that belief infringes on my rights, I can and do object. For example if I am asked to move seats on a plane or my children to worship in school.

The problem with the sex and gender issue is that the first turned into the second and objection wasn't permitted. Different to other beliefs in this way.

And in the case of religions which hurt women and children, I think we can all read history.

I think its the way this ideology has taken hold and the "phobia" that is the crux of the matter - there are lots of views that have appeared from time to time which are quite bizarre. In these cases live and let live - the difference with this ideology is that it has taken over and it does not allow challenge. I think this extremely dangerous, the way it has been presented to young people is in my view wrong.

I personally would not be unhappy with a compromise of the sort - I'll respect your right to believe it if you respect my right not to and we continue to have respect for sex and sexual orientation boundaries.

Like working alongside a Christian fundamentalist. He's allowed to think I'm a sinner, I'm allowed to think he's a bit sexist and homophobic, neither of us is obliged to believe the same things as the other as long as we do our job and give the other person the space support and respect they need to do theirs.

It's to do with the creation of human rights laws being applicable to everyone in the wake of genocides associated with totalitairian regimes in the run-up to 1948.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-are-human-rights/history-human-rights-britain

It is rather important.

Yes, took me a while to scrape my jaw off the floor after the initial decision. It was tough for Maya, but the fact that her case had to go to appeal was better for everyone else that follows because the EAT decision sets a precedent that a straight victory wouldn't have done. (In my understanding, but IADNAL.)

Numerous nations, states, and religious fiefdoms have engaged in bloody and protracted conflicts throughout history because of irreconcilable conflicts between Catholicism and Protestant beliefs.

You might never have been called a Nazi because you don’t believe in the apostolic authority of the Catholic Church, but if your ancestors come from Western Europe then it’s entirely possible that they fought and died over the issue.

Indeed. And you do agree that was a bad thing, right?

We are supposed to be now living in an age when people have the right to take or leave any belief they wish, when people are not allowed to force others to go along with their beliefs.

I'm delighted to be living in an age where I can freely and openly live my life without religion. Happy to let people get on with it if they want to, but they can't make me follow their rules. Thank goodness for that.

Unfortunately I don't have the same freedom to let people get on with their belief in gender ideology without participating myself.

It's a protected characteristic thanks to maya. i am.openly GC at work as I'm literally protected by the law.

People seem to see ideology that they deem non-religious or secular as being qualitatively different, and not subject to the same kinds of limits.

Most of the west has a fairly longstanding way to manage the relation of the state to people and groups with diverse religious beliefs - the state limits the degree to which it adopts or enforces any of those sets of beliefs, while not limiting the right of individuals to hold them or even in many cases advocate for laws and such reflecting elements of them.

But the fact is that people who are non-religious also have a belief system about the nature of reality that is constituted by a number of underlying assumptions, ideas about how we know what's true, ethical parameters, and so on. There are any number of different non-religious belief systems, and they not only come into conflict in the public sphere with religious ideologies, but with other non-religious ideologies.

For some reason people think it is ok for the state to wholeheartedly adopt non-religious ideologies and promote or enforce them on everyone in a way they would never do with any particular religion. As if being non-religious makes them either inherently more rational, or more neutral.

Maybe there needs to be a kind of equivalent to the secular solution with regard to non-religious ideology.

Well, is the belief that "a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father and the son of a virgin can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree" worthy of respect in a democratic society?

It seems it is, despite the multitude of harms done over centuries by its adherents. (Today is Easter Sunday, I note.)

Given which, surely "mammals can't change sex" (or "2 + 2 = 4", possibly?) might sneak in under the radar somehow?

LOL, that's a great description of Christianity, sewexe!

The problem has been so many industries galloping ahead of the law in their desperation for woke brownie points. Stonewall have done incalculable damage.

This.
I might win an employment tribunal but it would still seriously fuck up my life.

I agree with you, it is just to show how very similar to a religion this trans-activism is.

I really don’t want it to take centuries to arrive at a place of sanity for women.