[News] A woman is a woman.

[DJ NOBO]

This is where the subtlety of the issue comes in to play. Essentially, decent people want to be nice to other people, especially persecuted minorities. Trans-women are biologically men. That is a fact and a truth. But referring to them as men (when many don't even have a penis) can be seen a spiteful and punching down to people who may be very vulnerable. Why not just call them trans-women. That is their protected characteristic, not being biologically male.

In light of SC ruling, if you refer to a trans woman as he, to what extent could or should that be considered inflammatory ?
What about in a workplace ?

 

[n1 gull]

Ok. Let's break this down.

No. That is incorrect. It's normally based on ignorance as well which is kind of ironic, because you seem to be ignorant about that.


This is a false narrative because my accusation that your language is transphobic does not contain an accusation that you'll treat people unequally. That's irrelevant to my point.


This is where the subtlety of the issue comes in to play. Essentially, decent people want to be nice to other people, especially persecuted minorities. Trans-women are biologically men. That is a fact and a truth. But referring to them as men (when many don't even have a penis) can be seen a spiteful and punching down to people who may be very vulnerable. Why not just call them trans-women. That is their protected characteristic, not being biologically male.

As for men telling women what to do. I'd suspect those getting gaslit and enraged about this issue are 90% ignorant men.


It's hate speech. Obviously.

You have likened a trans-woman to a male serial killer in a dress. You are linking both a cisgender man and a murderer (albeit a fictional one) to trans-women. It's the equivalent of linking banking with Judaism or terrorism with Islam because your very clear implication is 'all trans-women' are like this. It's a transphobic statement whatever your opinion but I actually think it's through ignorance now rather than any spite (reading your other comments) so apologies for the nasty little man comment.

In terms of suppressing your 'free speech', your premise is nonsensical, I don't have the power to suppress your speech. Even if I did, I'd want you to be educated rather than suppressed. Free speech is not absolute, you can be prosecuted for hate speech.

This sounds like something from the Chinese Communist Party

Hate speech and re-education until we get to the correct outcome...

 

[Hugo Rune]

In light of SC ruling, if you refer to a trans woman as he, to what extent could or should that be considered inflammatory ?
What about in a workplace ?

Define 'inflammatory'?

I think it's about respect. If someone has asked or be referred to by certain pro-nouns, why not learn to use them? Obviously there might be mistakes etc.

If you are the kind or person who is going to say 'no, I'm not going to call you 'she' because of the court ruling, you are a bloke', you are probably the type no one wants to work with.

 

[m20gull]

This is the trope.

Is there any evidence of any actual people admitting their regret later?

The case you mentioned, well, gender reassignment won't cure a mental health problem but the person may still have been appropriately gender reassigned.

I am getting a knee replacement tomorrow and I have a bad back.
I am not expecting my new knee to fix my back problem.
But I hope it may.
If it doesn't I am not sure it would be appropriate to regret the knee replacement.
That would be silly

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out...-says-was-fast-tracked-transgender-rcna183815
That's one example but there are more. Data is hard to come by but:
https://www.medscape.co.uk/viewarticle/1000-families-sue-tavistock-gender-service-2022a10021ac

 

[m20gull]

Define 'inflammatory'?

I think it's about respect. If someone has asked or be referred to by certain pro-nouns, why not learn to use them? Obviously there might be mistakes etc.

If you are the kind or person who is going to say 'no, I'm not going to call you 'she' because of the court ruling, you are a bloke', you are probably the type no one wants to work with.

And the SC judgement changes nothing in this regard. People with a protected characteristic of gender reassignment are still protected.

 

[Hugo Rune]

This sounds like something from the Chinese Communist Party

Hate speech and re-education until we get to the correct outcome...

Sorry. Your post makes absolutely no sense. Can you clarify what you mean and what you are referring to?

 

[DJ NOBO]

Define 'inflammatory'?

Both slightly rude and the opposite end of the scale legality? (the use of that word wasn’t an attempt to catch you out btw).

I think it's about respect. If someone has asked or be referred to by certain pro-nouns, why not learn to use them? Obviously there might be mistakes etc.

If you are the kind or person who is going to say 'no, I'm not going to call you 'she' because of the court ruling, you are a bloke', you are probably the type no one wants to work with.

So someone who - according to the legal system - refers to someone with the established pronoun for a human emphatically born as a particular sex, should be ostracised by everyone?
You talk about respect - what about the respect for someone who believes pronouns start and stop with the sex you are born with?
Correct me if I’m wrong but i wonder if you think anyone who refers to a trans woman as he could only be vindictive.
Im not sure your view of how things should be done will fly.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Both slightly rude and the opposite end of the scale legality? (the use of that word wasn’t an attempt to catch you out btw).

So someone who - according to the legal system - refers to someone with the established pronoun for a human emphatically born as a particular sex, should be ostracised by everyone?
You talk about respect - what about the respect for someone who believes pronouns start and stop with the sex you are born with? A view which I believe is now supported by the SC.
Im not sure your view of how things should be done will fly.

I wasn't aware that the SC had made a ruling on pronoun usage which is, by practice, linked to gender not biological sex. Can you show me where you got this information?

As @m20gull stated, trans people are still a protected group. Therefore, you are likely to face a disciplinary in your workplace if they make a complaint about someone purposely mis-gendering them by using a pronoun they don't want used when referring or speaking to them.

 

[DJ NOBO]

I wasn't aware that the SC had made a ruling on pronoun usage which is, by practice, linked to gender not biological sex. Can you show me where you got this information?

As @m20gull stated, trans people are still a protected group. Therefore, you are likely to face a disciplinary in your workplace if they make a complaint about someone purposely mis-gendering them by using a pronoun they don't want used when referring or speaking to them.

I initially messaged you for information and was interested in your view . I don’t pretend to be versed on everything in this hugely complex subject.
So, if someone referred to a transwoman as he in the workplace they could still be in trouble Despite SC ruling?
[I am not planning to do this btw - I freelance from home for one thing - I’m just interested).
Imo, that’s wrong but there you go.
And if you believe mispronouning someone could only be done out of malice, it suggests to me you don’t speak to a broad range of people. The law is on your side though, fair enough.

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

This is the trope.

Is there any evidence of any actual people admitting their regret later?

The case you mentioned, well, gender reassignment won't cure a mental health problem but the person may still have been appropriately gender reassigned.

I am getting a knee replacement tomorrow and I have a bad back.
I am not expecting my new knee to fix my back problem.
But I hope it may.
If it doesn't I am not sure it would be appropriate to regret the knee replacement.
That would be silly

I watched a programme a few years or so back which covered this very thing. I’m sure it was the BBC. The programme incuded a number of mainly young women that had questioned their gender and quite rapidly gone down the route of taking hormone therapy and having breasts removed. It might have been around the time of some controversial stuff going on about the organisation Mermaids. Don’t quote me on that as memory a little vague. What I can say is that listening to one young woman tell her story about her regret, was pretty heartbreaking stuff.

A simple google has brought up these …

Going back: The people reversing their gender transition

How do I got back to the Debbie I was

NHS gender clinic 'should have challenged me more' over transition

 

[Hugo Rune]

I initially messaged you for information and was interested in your view . I don’t pretend to be versed on everything in this hugely complex subject.
So, if someone referred to a transwoman as he in the workplace they could still be in trouble Despite SC ruling?
[I am not planning to do this btw - I freelance from home for one thing - I’m just interested).
Imo, that’s wrong but there you go.
And if you believe mispronouning someone could only be done out of malice, it suggests to me you don’t speak to a broad range of people. The law is on your side though, fair enough.

I don't believe that. Who does?

 

[BadFish]

I initially messaged you for information and was interested in your view . I don’t pretend to be versed on everything in this hugely complex subject.
So, if someone referred to a transwoman as he in the workplace they could still be in trouble Despite SC ruling?
[I am not planning to do this btw - I freelance from home for one thing - I’m just interested).
Imo, that’s wrong but there you go.
And if you believe mispronouning someone could only be done out of malice, it suggests to me you don’t speak to a broad range of people. The law is on your side though, fair enough.

Without defining 'trouble' it is hard to answer but the legalities seem to suggest the answer was no in most situations. There seems to be a few cases that have set a precedent.

Can employers insist staff use other people's preferred pronouns?

In light of a recent EAT ruling, Glenn Hayes explores how the Equality Act applies when an employee's beliefs clash with an aspect of their job

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk

These cases don’t mean you can insist that your employees use the preferred pronouns of all the people they come into contact with. There's clearly a distinction between people whose personal beliefs mean they can't or won't perform all of their duties, and those whose beliefs don't have any impact on their work. Nor should you force staff to declare their preferred pronouns. Pronouns are not neutral. The move towards declaring one's pronouns is based on the belief that everyone has an inner gender identity. Many people don't accept this, and we know from the EAT's decisions in Forstater and Bailey that people with gender-critical beliefs are equally protected under the Equality Act.



Edit: Dammit I was supposed to be staying off this thread

 

[herecomesaregular]

My cousin lived with me for 2 months after feeling her Uni flat mates were some kind of phobic (honestly can't remember which) and moving out suddenly. They were sexually fluid or something (also at one point asexual in the 2 months, but that seemed to change) and asked to be called They etc. No probs, I tried my best but jeez they blew their top when I slipped up. Took it as if I was being deliberately offensive when it's just very habitual to say he/she and, as we all know, habits are a slow tanker to turn around. In the end, I had to pause a lot in most conversations (which became a bit vegan-y or everything seemed often linked to her gender. And like vegans I'm very much do/be as you choose, no worries..... but don't go on and on about it all the bleeding time). Sadly, I was quite glad when she moved out. I'm very much live and let live but it was a bit much.

 

[BadFish]

My cousin lived with me for 2 months after feeling her Uni flat mates were some kind of phobic (honestly can't remember which) and moving out suddenly. They were sexually fluid or something (also at one point asexual in the 2 months, but that seemed to change) and asked to be called They etc. No probs, I tried my best but jeez they blew their top when I slipped up. Took it as if I was being deliberately offensive when it's just very habitual to say he/she and, as we all know, habits are a slow tanker to turn around. In the end, I had to pause a lot in most conversations (which became a bit vegan-y or everything seemed often linked to her gender. And like vegans I'm very much do/be as you choose, no worries..... but don't go on and on about it all the bleeding time). Sadly, I was quite glad when she moved out. I'm very much live and let live but it was a bit much.

I know several people who have asked to be referred to as 'they'. When asked, I have explained that I will struggle with it for a while until it becomes a habit. I have never had the experience you mention, a quick 'sorry' then correction usually suffices.

Yesterday I got called by two of my sister in law's names before my wife got my name right. People make mistakes, it happens. Anyway I will try and do the same to her and see if she is okay with it

 

[DJ NOBO]

Without defining 'trouble' it is hard to answer but the legalities seem to suggest the answer was no in most situations. There seems to be a few cases that have set a precedent.

Can employers insist staff use other people's preferred pronouns?

In light of a recent EAT ruling, Glenn Hayes explores how the Equality Act applies when an employee's beliefs clash with an aspect of their job

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk

These cases don’t mean you can insist that your employees use the preferred pronouns of all the people they come into contact with. There's clearly a distinction between people whose personal beliefs mean they can't or won't perform all of their duties, and those whose beliefs don't have any impact on their work. Nor should you force staff to declare their preferred pronouns. Pronouns are not neutral. The move towards declaring one's pronouns is based on the belief that everyone has an inner gender identity. Many people don't accept this, and we know from the EAT's decisions in Forstater and Bailey that people with gender-critical beliefs are equally protected under the Equality Act.



Edit: Dammit I was supposed to be staying off this thread

I lasted longer than you

 

[BadFish]

I lasted longer than you

No you didn't!!! It was your post I replied to

 

[Curious Orange]

My cousin lived with me for 2 months after feeling her Uni flat mates were some kind of phobic (honestly can't remember which) and moving out suddenly. They were sexually fluid or something (also at one point asexual in the 2 months, but that seemed to change) and asked to be called They etc. No probs, I tried my best but jeez they blew their top when I slipped up. Took it as if I was being deliberately offensive when it's just very habitual to say he/she and, as we all know, habits are a slow tanker to turn around. In the end, I had to pause a lot in most conversations (which became a bit vegan-y or everything seemed often linked to her gender. And like vegans I'm very much do/be as you choose, no worries..... but don't go on and on about it all the bleeding time). Sadly, I was quite glad when she moved out. I'm very much live and let live but it was a bit much.

I've always thought that insisting on specific pronouns was something of a narcissistic trend. I have trouble enough persuading people not to use the shortened version of my first name (because I don't like it), but I certainly don't take it personally or berate people when they do use it.

In terms of mis-gendering someone, or whatever you want to call it, the Equality Act (2010) provides protection for people with the protected characteristics against discrimination, victimisation and harassment. So the claimant would have to prove one of those things - so getting a pronoun wrong once or twice probably is not going to get anyone into any legal trouble.

 

[fly high]

No just defacing statues but also holding banners calling for stabbings ,hangings and burning at the stake . All under the noses of plod

When have the women who took this action to court ever threatened any trans person with violence? How many times have trans activists threatened anyone who dares to defend women's rights, too numerous to mention. If you want greater understanding and support you don't achieve it this way.

 

[BadFish]

I've always thought that insisting on specific pronouns was something of a narcissistic trend. I have trouble enough persuading people not to use the shortened version of my first name (because I don't like it), but I certainly don't take it personally when people do use it.

In terms of mis-gendering someone, or whatever you want to call it, the Equality Act (2010) provides protection for people with the protected characteristics against discrimination, victimisation and harassment. So the claimant would have to prove one of those things - so getting a pronoun wrong once or twice probably is not going to get anyone into any legal trouble.

From the stuff I posted earlier, it seems like if you firmly believe that a person can't change their gender, then you may be okay. What I am not sure of is if your beliefs require the backup of an imaginary sky fairy and a book of mythical stories written 2000 years ago.

 

[jcdenton08]

From the stuff I posted earlier, it seems like if you firmly believe that a person can't change their gender, then you may be okay. What I am not sure of is if your beliefs require the backup of an imaginary sky fairy and a book of mythical stories written 2000 years ago.

Deep breaths mate, you’re getting a bit inflammatory and we’re just having a sensible discussion here. I haven’t seen anyone mention religion in relation to this adult discussion we’re having