Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Thread gallery
17
TodayInahurry · 15/10/2023 08:12

So people will be put in prison for saying hurty words, when they are turning away actual rapists because the prisons are full?

ArabellaScott · 15/10/2023 08:14

It'll make the prison staff's lives easier, at any rate.

DirectionToPerfection · 15/10/2023 08:19

Christ, I can't believe people are falling for this.

It's desperate, made up nonsense from the Daily Mail designed to get a certain cohort frothing at the mouth.

PrincessNoteSpelling · 15/10/2023 08:23

LizzieSiddal · 15/10/2023 00:21

Is this the same law which will make us have 7 bins?

We currently have 6! No room for even 1 more!

Labour want jail time for pronoun refuseniks - DM
AnxiousPangolin · 15/10/2023 08:28

BIWI · 14/10/2023 23:09

It's the Daily Mail.

I'm not even going to click on that link, and I simply don't believe the story to be true either.

Very much this.

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

topnoddy · 15/10/2023 08:31

BIWI · 14/10/2023 23:09

It's the Daily Mail.

I'm not even going to click on that link, and I simply don't believe the story to be true either.

Yep it's The Daily Mail , get more true news in VIz !

postcard · 15/10/2023 08:33

This section of MN is just becoming a parody. It’s not feminism, it’s just anti-Labour.

Rabaula27 · 15/10/2023 08:41

@BIWI “t's the Daily Mail.

I'm not even going to click on that link, and I simply don't believe the story to be true either.”

Well don’t click it then. And just disbelieve it without even checking if it is true or not. And vote Labour if you want to, it is entirely up to you… Just please do not complain if it turns out that it is true and you find yourself living in a country where it is true and is now the law of the land.

SaffronSpice · 15/10/2023 08:42

So many overnight posters desperate to get us to believe something couldn’t be true because it is in the Daily Mail.

How’s #NoDebate working out for you?

SaffronSpice · 15/10/2023 08:44

cuckyplunt · 15/10/2023 06:50

It’s quite simple, call people by the pronouns that they choose to use?

It’s quite simply, women in Iran should wear the Hijab if they don’t want to be beaten to death by the morality police.

EasternStandard · 15/10/2023 08:45

I don’t get the not even going to read it posts

I won’t take it as stated but I’ll look for more information either way

Meeko86 · 15/10/2023 08:46

Well that’s my 5 year old going down he calls everyone ‘he or him’ male female or dog 😂

EasternStandard · 15/10/2023 08:47

SaffronSpice · 15/10/2023 08:44

It’s quite simply, women in Iran should wear the Hijab if they don’t want to be beaten to death by the morality police.

Show quote history

Yes the ‘quite simple’ part is chilling

Forced speech

BIWI · 15/10/2023 08:47

Look - I don't believe anything that the Daily Mail choose to make their headlines about. They are notorious goady fuckers. Anything to make people froth about things.

So kill me.

I'll read any other paper, actually - even ones with different political affiliations than my own.

Froodwithatowel · 15/10/2023 08:49

So far I've got from the conference: murder the green belt , build houses everywhere, there's no money for more infrastructure and save the environment 😜🤔

And that women's rights really matter across the world but women is a mixed sex group and women's rights should be mostly about doing whatever men want and stamping on stupid women who think there might be an issue with this. Oh and not safeguarding children but getting them on potentially life destroying and un tested meds faster.

Jailing people for refusing to have their language controlled and join in with their own oppression sounds no less batshit to me than any of that. <shrug>

burnoutbabe · 15/10/2023 08:52

I thought this was more about extra sentences for attacking people on the basis they are women (or a particular race or religion) rather than attacking them "as I am a thug" or "he stole my pint")

So adding on sex /gender onto the current race and religion (I can't recall if sexual orientation is included but maybe should be)?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/10/2023 08:53

That is, I can see Labour putting a rule like this in place, without really connecting the dots on how it could be used and what the logical outcomes would be.

It would be nice to think that legislators are more careful than that, but it seems pretty clear by now that a lot of laws are being passed because they seem to have the right sentiments, without really properly thinking about the consequences. Or even dismissing the possibilities when they are pointed out.

This.

Pewpewbarneymcgrew · 15/10/2023 08:54

Usual Daily Mail twaddle, they’re getting desperate

ArabellaScott · 15/10/2023 08:56

postcard · 15/10/2023 08:33

This section of MN is just becoming a parody. It’s not feminism, it’s just anti-Labour.

Eh?

EasternStandard · 15/10/2023 08:57

A new hate crime will include gender for first time (ie men included as women) so maybe linked to that

ArabellaScott · 15/10/2023 08:58

Finding it quite odd that we get so many posters who aren't usually on FWR popping up on this thread to tell us how awful this paper is and how terrible it is to criticise Labour.

But none of them addressing the issue in the OP.

EasternStandard · 15/10/2023 08:59

ArabellaScott · 15/10/2023 08:58

Finding it quite odd that we get so many posters who aren't usually on FWR popping up on this thread to tell us how awful this paper is and how terrible it is to criticise Labour.

But none of them addressing the issue in the OP.

It’s likely the ‘Labour’ in the thread title attracting defence

topnoddy · 15/10/2023 09:14

Any of the main political parties will say whatever they think will get them enough votes to get in to No 10 !

AnxiousPangolin · 15/10/2023 09:17

ArabellaScott · 15/10/2023 08:58

Finding it quite odd that we get so many posters who aren't usually on FWR popping up on this thread to tell us how awful this paper is and how terrible it is to criticise Labour.

But none of them addressing the issue in the OP.

The thread title is ‘Labour want jail time for pronoun refuseniks’. This is blatantly untrue and deliberately misleading.

The headline is ‘Deliberately calling someone by the wrong gender pronouns may land you in jail for TWO YEARS under Labour’.

If you read the article (which I now have, just to make my point), it says:

Labour would make attacks motivated by hatred of the victim's gender identity into 'aggravated offences'. This would bring transphobic abuse into line with assault and harassment motivated by hatred on the grounds of race or religion, which are punishable by up to two years in prison.

Are you suggesting that transphobic abuse should NOT be treated the same as race or religious attacks?

Also, read on:

Critics warn that the policy could therefore mean jail sentences for someone refusing to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, or referring to them by their former name or their birth sex rather than their chosen gender.

Critics? What critics?

Last night, a senior Tory source said: 'Some police forces have shown themselves overzealous in the pursuit of supposed hate crimes and this reform would send them a signal to go even further.

Oh, a TORY critic! And an unnamed one at that, with added speculation. Because the Tories never knee-jerk critics anything Labour do at all.

The article goes on to mention a couple of cases, both of which were overturned. There’s also a lot of ‘could’, ‘may’ and very non-committal language used. Even those with the most basic grasp of reading comprehension should see that this article is utter dog whistle nonsense, designed by a right-wing media outlet which traditionally hates women to whip up froth against Labour.

I am GC, but if you think that this article is proof of anything then you are deluded.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 15/10/2023 09:22

That is, I can see Labour putting a rule like this in place, without really connecting the dots on how it could be used and what the logical outcomes would be.
**
It would be nice to think that legislators are more careful than that, but it seems pretty clear by now that a lot of laws are being passed because they seem to have the right sentiments, without really properly thinking about the consequences. Or even dismissing the possibilities when they are pointed out.

this! It’s the law of unintended consequences. When the Tories brought in right to buy in the 80s so wealth could “trickle down” the generations some people did point to the national assistance act 1948 & say “look more home owners means more people may well get charged to go into care homes and that will be a problem” but it was dismissed as an issue that would only affect a few people. 40 years later and it’s a huge issue.

GRA 2004 was meant to affect only a few thousand people at most and anyone who said “hang on aren’t there massive consequences if you allow people to change their legal sex?” was shouted down.

this is exactly the sort of ill thought through idea that could end up in legislation with the unintended consequence that people who won’t lie about someone’s biological sex could theoretically be jailed.

Swipe left for the next trending thread