Page 3 | Hadley Freeman - Indulging killers’ trans delusions is dangerous

SapphosRock · 2024-03-03T10:50:41+00:00

I think I've done the share token right: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/indulging-killers-trans-delusions-is-dangerous-mrxfm5lfd Well done Hadley for highlighting the madness in the Times, I bet the Guardian wouldn't have published it.

viques · 04/03/2024 09:20

Runskiyoga · 03/03/2024 11:06

Huge debate going on in the comments. I must admit I am challenged by it. I tend, like Hadley, to respect pronouns. But it exposes the fallacy in this for her to say 'why are the police and media respecting a convicted murderer who ...'
Because I do believe convicted criminals are worthy of the respect we generally afford our fellow humans. And because then there is an arbitrary post offending, post conviction stripping of pronouns, respect and trans status. This troubles me and underlines the mess we are in.

I think that female prisoners, many of whom have already experienced sexual violence and abuse, should also be accorded respect by not imprisoning them with male murderers, rapists and liars.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 04/03/2024 09:22

Waffleson · 04/03/2024 09:10

On the pronouns question, I just see that as a manners and respect issue. For example in my role I sometimes have to look at someone's DBS. I might see that they have a previous conviction. Obviously I never mention this in any way. But if the person was then suspected of a crime I might mention it to the police, and it would also be raised by the judge in sentencing.

So I do think there are situations where you might have previously respected someone's wishes and right to privacy that could change if they committed a crime in the interests of protecting society.

If Blake had been convicted of shoplifting there would be no need for society to know his biological sex, but because he has been convicted of an extremely rare and shocking crime, it's in the public interest to understand his background and record the crime correctly.

Worth remembering that if the person has name changed, shockingly the DBS has given these people an exemption to the honesty that is required from ordinary citizens and they don't have to reveal any previous names. These people have a special help line that they may wish to contact about this - because as we all know paedophiles and sex offenders are renowned for telling the truth about previous offending. The government have said they'll close the loophope but to date, I've not seen any evidence of this happening:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4911334-sex-offenders-to-be-banned-from-changing-name-and-gender

Sex Offenders to be Banned from Changing Name and Gender | Mumsnet

Article in the Times, it has been archived. [[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-sex-offenders-detection-change-name-fsctkkmjt https://www.thetime...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4911334-sex-offenders-to-be-banned-from-changing-name-and-gender

AuContraire · 04/03/2024 10:17

Waffleson · 04/03/2024 09:10

On the pronouns question, I just see that as a manners and respect issue. For example in my role I sometimes have to look at someone's DBS. I might see that they have a previous conviction. Obviously I never mention this in any way. But if the person was then suspected of a crime I might mention it to the police, and it would also be raised by the judge in sentencing.

So I do think there are situations where you might have previously respected someone's wishes and right to privacy that could change if they committed a crime in the interests of protecting society.

If Blake had been convicted of shoplifting there would be no need for society to know his biological sex, but because he has been convicted of an extremely rare and shocking crime, it's in the public interest to understand his background and record the crime correctly.

We should still record someone's sex accurately if they are shoplifting.

Either sex is completely irrelevant and therefore there is no need to record anyone's sex at all, or it has or may have some relevance in which case it needs to be recorded and referred to accurately.

Even if its relevance is just for monitoring crime statistics to aid policy-making, if sex is being recorded for some people it needs to be accurately recorded for all people or it messes everything up.

By all means record sex and include detail about their special gender feelings as well as their sex, but if you're recording sex, and referring sex, then it needs to be accurate.

Vod · 04/03/2024 10:27

RoyalCorgi · 04/03/2024 09:10

And has anyone noticed that, whenever the Guardian has a news report on Tommy Robinson, it always refers to him as "Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon"?

Lots of people change their names as adults, yet I don't think the paper does that with anyone else. So why does Robinson always have his "real" name appended, but a vicious murderer is given the courtesy, not just of his preferred name, but his adopted sex and pronouns?

Show quote history

Good point, they seem to be selective about how they refer to arseholes.

LentilFaculties · 04/03/2024 11:34

I think this just highlights that viewing pronouns as basic respect is extraordinarily simplistic.

It should be a personal choice and never, ever coerced or mandated. The very act of attempting to force others ought in itself be enough to throw doubt on whether the respect goes both ways. I see it as analogous to the gay best friend who comes on the hen do, or the one non-threatening man allowed to overhear the intimate chat between women in an office. It is bestowed upon that male. If he had demanded it, he would automatically have been excluded from the hen do / office chat.

Because demanding we refer to males with female pronouns isn't respectful to women. Recent events prove how it is very far from a neutral act and has real life negative consequences for potentially all women.

I'm staggered that a society that is learning to treat other cultures with more respect is unable to offer the same to women.

Missproportionate · 04/03/2024 11:41

It also highlights that we now have a cohort of young adults that haven’t been through proper puberty. Their brains haven’t developed properly and they haven’t had the hormones to trigger that development. I can’t see how they ever will- psychologically stunted as well as physiologically

Froodwithatowel · 04/03/2024 17:48

LentilFaculties · 04/03/2024 11:34

I think this just highlights that viewing pronouns as basic respect is extraordinarily simplistic.

It should be a personal choice and never, ever coerced or mandated. The very act of attempting to force others ought in itself be enough to throw doubt on whether the respect goes both ways. I see it as analogous to the gay best friend who comes on the hen do, or the one non-threatening man allowed to overhear the intimate chat between women in an office. It is bestowed upon that male. If he had demanded it, he would automatically have been excluded from the hen do / office chat.

Because demanding we refer to males with female pronouns isn't respectful to women. Recent events prove how it is very far from a neutral act and has real life negative consequences for potentially all women.

I'm staggered that a society that is learning to treat other cultures with more respect is unable to offer the same to women.

All that.

It's the growl of a disaffected teen. 'Are you disrespectin' me?'

Helleofabore · 04/03/2024 18:04

And yet Willoughby has again resorted to using 'people treat me as a female' in Willoughby's accusations at Joanne Rowling today. And what do people do when they treat these male people as 'female', they use preferred pronouns. Out of respect.

I really think it is time that people started to understand that they cannot have it both ways. They really cannot use pronouns for those they 'respect' and draw some imaginary line of deservedness for those they don't respect. It is incoherent and inconsistent. And results in harm being done to women ultimately.