John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

[slet]

It’s interesting how this is being discussed atm. I see Ash Sarkar has framed it as an example of competing rights between disabled people and victims of racism, forgetting about intersectionality. But there is a struggle from those on the extreme left to see how women’s rights are compromised by ceding to TRAs.

not expressing myself very well but thought it had some interesting parallels with the sex and gender debate.

Yes, you think of the fact that people like MBJ are quite capable of hearing words like that when they are getting paid a lot of money for it; the case of the rapper who condemned a woman he invited up on stage for singing the lyrics of his song which, of course, he knew were there; there was the case in Canada of a very well regarded journalist in a staff discussion around covering a topical story about language use - she was ultimately fired.

It's taboo words and actions, with an almost ritualistic quality.

I mean - I guess it is a really good thing you don't have friends or family with a disorder like this, as presumably you would be unable to manage being harassed?

Now - I am sure you will tell me that isn't in fact the case, because understanding the cause would change the meaning of the sounds they are producing. And you are able to reflect on that, even if your initial thoughts and feelings are differernt.

Harassment isn't just about people's feelings in any case, that would be a completely unworkable kind of law.

Also strong echoes of "Why aren't women's boundaries enough for you?". Apparently Black women's boundaries can get in the sea.

It's taboo words and actions, with an almost ritualistic quality. Its about history, current reality and power.

Imagine the response to a trans woman telling a biological woman that words like “mother,” “female,” or “woman” or "breastfeeding" are “just language” and that any hurt at their redefinition is magical thinking or ritualistic taboo.

Oh wait! Just remembered, I don't have to imagine.

Agree that the potential trauma of a minority of people cannot be the basis of how human behaviour is structured in a society. It's simply not practical.

I'm not sure that's a sound argument, as could you not then argue that there are far, far more people offended by Tourette's coprolalia tics than there are people with coprolalia (1% of people have Tourette's, and only about 10 to 30% of them have coprolalia), and therefore it's not practical to force everyone to accommodate them?

And wow. I'm not sure that people being bothered by the N word is an example of the decadence of society... I'd say Jeffery Epstein and all his cronies are a great example of that. But Black people being bothered by the N word? Mmmm...no. That's a sign of not liking racism, not a sign of societal decadence.

Ah, so now we're getting into the, "but some Black people are using the N word taboo against white people maliciously! Like in these three isolated cases," argument.

It's like saying, "but some women are conniving bitches who lie about being raped."

Does it happen? Yes.
Is it incredibly rare compared to the opposite issue (racism/misogyny)? Also yes.
Is it a somewhat DARVO kind of move to use that as a defence? A little bit, yeah.

Harassment is defined by its effect on the victim. It is not defined by the intent of the perpetrator.

This is not quite right. Harassment is unwanted conduct related to a PC which has the purpose or effect of violating someone's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

If someone deliberately tries to harass you but does not succeed, the fact that the purpose was there is enough.

If the unwanted conduct has the effect of violating your dignity etc. it doesn't matter if that was not the purpose, however 'effect' does not only depend on the perception of the person being harassed but also on the other circumstances surrounding the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

Harassment claims are always highly fact-specific so hypothetical analogies are rarely helpful.

No, we don't have to imagine because TRA say these things all the time and barely anyone bats an eyelid. The 'response' is generally that organisations comply with the TRA and expunge any words from their policies that might imply that sex exists.

These things are clearly not unsayable. They are wrong and we will argue back, right up to the Supreme Court if we have to, not because what they say is hurtful but because policies based on their arguments destroy our rights. But they're perfectly free to carry on saying those things.

Whether a word is taboo does not depend on whether it is hurtful or not, or whether the hurt is acknowledged or not, it depends on whether the word is sayable or not.

I don't know what you mean when you say 'magical thinking', it doesn't seem to relate to what others here mean when we talk about 'magic words'.

Gosh that's quite something, judge. But relieved to see sense prevailed in the sentencing.

likely to be intensely painful and shocking

I'm still incredulous that there is anyone who actually doesn't believe that a word is, sometimes, just a word.

"“The events this weekend exposed a couple things institutionally...We still don’t understand what inclusion means; just because you invite someone into a space, but you don’t provide the necessary resources to keep them and everyone else in that room safe by them being there, that’s not inclusivity. That’s exploitation. That man’s disability got exploited that night, and it led to multiple offenses. That’s the BAFTAs’ fault.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniesoteriou/jayme-lawson-wunmi-mosaku-praised-n-word-baftas-comments

TRA say these things all the time and barely anyone bats an eyelid.

And the lies just keep coming, thick and fast.

Whether a word is taboo to a Black Woman is for them and those in their community to decide.

I'm still incredulous that there is anyone who actually doesn't believe that a word is, sometimes, just a word.

I look forward to you using the semantics defense against the Tra's as they try to linguistically rewrite what it is to be a woman.

So according to you and others on this board:

Sex based rights = legal standing, respect, consideration, empathy = Legitimate
Race/ Ethnicity based rights =no legal standing, no respect, no consideration, no empathy = Illegitimate/ optional

Perhaps the board should simply be renamed Empire-Based Feminism: Sex and Gender.
It would more accurately reflect the perspective some posters bring. It would also spare Black women the tedious job of wading though pages of posts to work out whether we engaging with people who consider us equals or with those with a more colonial mindset.

Cis
Woman
Terf
Bitch
Hag
Crone
Karen

Look at all the 'just words'.

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'semantic defence'. The defence of what?

And fail to see how the fact that a word is a word so difficult to accept.

They are just words.

You are kind of proving my point.
You are happy to type them. What, pray, is the difference between those and the N-word? What can't that one be uttered (or typed) in full?

TRA say these things all the time and barely anyone bats an eyelid.

And the lies just keep coming, thick and fast.

Yeah, my jaw dropped there but can't say I'm surprised. More proof of 'alternate universing' for convenience.

Speaking of magical words, are we calling them "magic" only if they were said involuntarily or just in general. Because if the latter, and words aren't supposed to offend (as we know, "offence isn't given, it can only be taken"), I can think of some words we should no longer be offended by here and stop asking mnhq to ban the use of: Karen, terf, cis, etc. You know, those slurs we can't quite manage to see as 'just a word'.

“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” JKR

Just words, right?

Convention. And plenty of people on these boards type "c*s" or have in the past. Point is we frequently debate whether these are 'just words' or whether they tell us anything about structural and/or accepted attitudes towards women, or whether we should move away from or discourage their use.

Look if you want to say the N word, just say it.

It's an astounding rewriting of history, isn't it?

I know.

The hypocrisy is spellbinding, especially when you contrast these responses with those of the posters who have managed to engage thoughtfully and in good faith.

People refuse to support POC who are offended by the slur while supporting women who are offended by words, because they feel POC have too many rights and that they are threatening their own rights as white people.
They are the same people who indulge in MRA style whataboutery, talking about 'racism against white people' every time there's a discussion on racism.
They are the people who condemn EDI initiatives, despite the benefits they bring to women and the disabled people they've suddenly become so concerned about, because they believe they lead to POC having advantage over white people.
Just like the MRA and the TRA do with women, they minimise, belittle and deny any harms or disadvantage caused to POC because they feel their rights as white people are endangered by protections afforded to them.
Its the exact same motivations and behaviour, and just as pointless arguing with then as it is with the MRA and TRA.

And the lies just keep coming, thick and fast.

Are you only capable of reading one sentence in a post? Here is the rest of the relevant part (I have bolded a couple of short bits to help):

The 'response' is generally that organisations comply with the TRA and expunge any words from their policies that might imply that sex exists.

These things are clearly not unsayable. They are wrong and we will argue back, right up to the Supreme Court if we have to, not because what they say is hurtful but because policies based on their arguments destroy our rights. But they're perfectly free to carry on saying those things.
------

Whether a word is taboo to a Black Woman is for them and those in their community to decide.

Of course.

When you use the word 'taboo' in the above sentence, do you mean a word which is hurtful or a word which must never be said or written? My post was about the latter but I'm quite happy to say 'words which must never be said or written' if that would avoid confusion.

And once again, intent has been lost down the back of the sofa.

Would this all be still playing out if one of the other slurs Davidson inadvertently shouted out during the ceremony had been broadcast instead? And if the presenters hadn’t been American?

I very much doubt it.

Intent hasn’t been lost.

Did JD intend any offence? No
Would hearing the word offend? Yes

Some people are arguing beyond “No offence was meant”. They’re arguing “it’s just a word, how can anyone be offended”. Which besides anything else seems to completely ignore a major feature of coprolalia. The involuntary words are obscene and/or offensive.

That was so eloquent, thank you.
I am a woman, I am black and I have a disability. It has been sad but not surprising to see some of the cognitive dissonance here wrt race.