Cancel Culture or Free Speech

Galaxy

They dont have that right to sack for comments on social media Dickens the forstater case demonstrated that. They could be the recipient of legal action as has happened on a number of occasions. I am urging people to be very cautious about people interpretation of the law.

Yes, I understand that.

However, VS appears to be suggesting otherwise - which is why I laboured the point.

It’s encouraging to see this discussion. I’ll watch the ch4 programme today on catch up

Gender critical don't like any comparisons. Gay rights? Nope. Gay marriage? Nope. Intersex comparisons? Nope. Race hate? Nope.
You must meet some very strange GC, unlike those that certain posters on here decide are GC because they disagree with the posters in question.
Where has anybody on GN repudiated gay rights, gay marriage, etc or even the right to be transgender.
The only things ever under discussion are whether you can change sex-(you can’t) and where some trans, usually trans-women and TRA demand male access to female safe spaces, awards, jobs, despite the negative impact on females.
So for you, it’s OK for the few violent or threatening trans and fans to impact negatively on females.
That’s your choice.

Gender critical belief is protected under law if I was in a workplace where I was challenged for expressing the belief that you cant change sex I would seek legal advice and going by other cases I would win.
I think most people tend not to get into controversial issues in their workplace, for example I dont know how any of my team vote so generally it wouldnt come up. I currently work for a public sector employer, I am not worried in the slightest whether they know I am gender critical or not.

They dont have that right to sack for comments on social media Dickens the forstater case demonstrated that. They could be the recipient of legal action as has happened on a number of occasions. I am urging people to be very cautious about people interpretation of the law.

VioletSky

Namsnanny hmm well

Seeing as I'm awake and alone with my thoughts.

Many on this thread won't agree with me on what constitutes transphobic language, especially when it comes to protected beliefs and at the moment it is a bit difficult to navigate but it likely won't stay that way. There are scenarios we can look at that give hints of where it is headed.

Scenarios that are starting to run parallel with clamping down on racism and homophobia.

Hate crime

Transgender people are protected against hate crime. A hate crime is if the offender has demonstrated hostility based on transgender identity during an assault or been motivated to assault by hostility to transgender identity. So if a person were to assault a trans woman shouting that they are biologically a man and can't change sex, that would likely be classified as a hate crime as the crime is shown to have occured due to the victims trans status.

Trans people are afforded protections against discrimination under the equality act.

So work places cannot discriminate against trans people, and they also cannot create a hostile environment. So if a trans person were coming to work or school and facing someone staying "you can't change sex, you are a man" the employee or student can argue that creates a hostile environment and the organisation would need to investigate.

Many work places, organisations and platforms have policies in place for inclusive language and set their own rules for what language is considered hostile or transphobic. For work places this also includes employees social media and how they conduct themselves out of work. So if a worker is saying "you can't change sex, you are a man" this may violate their policies on trans inclusion.

We have historically seen many people lose their jobs after using racist or homophobic language. They won't be arrested for it but there are real world consequences. The same may already be happening in regards to transphobia and if it isn't, it likely will soon.

Then if we look at families and friendship groups. What members of family and friendship groups classify as transphobia also matters and that is another way that real life consequences may be implemented simply by saying that a trans women is a man.

That's my thoughts on it anyway, others will have a different perspective but I think it's a wait and see in 20 years or so like other issues

VS... further to your 'late' night (early morning!) thoughts:

If, in the workplace, one employee accosts another - apropos of nothing - and informs them that as a trans woman they cannot be a woman - that can be taken as an inflammatory move. If, on the other hand, said employees are sitting in the lunch room having a discussion on the matter, and the same individual debates the point and says they don't believe that a biological male, identifying as a woman, can be a woman, that is an entirely different scenario. That is free-speech, not hate-speech. If however a rider is added to the observation, one that threatens or intimidates, that is hate speech, and could be considered to be transphobic - merely stating that you don't accept or believe a biological male can be a woman in the course of conversation, is not.

If, out of the workplace I am photo'd carrying a banner which says that trans gender people should be de-capitated / beaten - or have any other form of violence perpetrated against them - my employee could rightly haul me up for it. If, on the other hand, he / she reads a comment I've made on social media to the effect that I don't believe a biological male can be a woman, in a chain / thread discussing the issue, then my employee most definitely does not have the right to sack me. And if he / she does, then we are on a very slidey slope towards the end of free-speech, a move being dictated at the moment I believe by a minority against the majority - and that majority also includes other trans gender individuals too.

Foxygloves They could and win the motion with a massive majority. The differnce would be, that if the country found itself at war shortly afterwards, they would refuse to fight.

It is not people on the internet who will face these discrimination cases it is employers, they are reacting accordingly and ensuring people with GC beliefs are not discriminated against.

Frankly appalled. The Oxford Union used to have a reputation for debating controversial subjects.
I am not going to get into the argument which ran to 1000 posts on whether or not women can have a penis (although I was tempted to ask “Whose?”) but am fed up with the idea that these precious and frankly privileged young people cannot face a frank and open debate on a topical matter.
Remember “This house would not fight for Queen and country”? I don’t believe they could debate that these days.

With regard to the workplace there have now been a number of legal cases where people have been fired for holding the belief that biological sex is real, they have won discrimination cases against their employer. I am afraid holding a gender critical viewpoint is protected so some of the information on here is inaccurate.

VioletSky

From what I've read Stock seems to be now championing herself as a polite moderate in this debate but her past history says sadly otherwise and she has come across as intolerant and hateful, which led to this

From what I've read and heard Stock is a thoughtful and moderate woman - I don't know all her history as hadn't heard of her until she had to leave Sussex University.

Where and when has she been intolerant and hateful?

It's not hateful to say you can't change your sex and it's not intolerant to say male-bodied people don't have a right to female spaces.

Here is a review from the Guardian.

The perception is that the listeners refused for this meeting to be disrupted:

"They have a new bicentenary slogan on the Oxford Union Society's literature this year: 'Celebrating 200 years of free speech'.

Last night, a vociferous alliance from across the 'trans, non-binary, gender non-conforming and intersex' community was doing its best to draw a line under that long and noble tradition by attempting to silence a middle-aged woman who has had the temerity to argue that a person with a penis is not a biological woman.

Yet despite repeated attempts to curtail the appearance of Professor Kathleen Stock in the society's famous debating chamber – including a sit-down protester with a tube of glue – it was cancel culture which was ultimately cancelled.

Despite a 20-minute delay, the weary but unflappable 51-year-old academic, author, lesbian feminist and mother-of-two finished her talk as planned, above a chorus of abusive chanting in the street outside.

Amid so much heat and noise, Professor Stock's central thesis could be summed as follows: sorry, folks but biological reality trumps one's inner feelings.

As she explained to a packed house – many of whom gave her a standing ovation at the beginning and the end: 'You can go about your life pretending for a while but ultimately reality will hit you in the face.'

Turning to the (male) president of the Oxford Union, she added: 'I can think of myself as a man all I like but ultimately I'm not going to arm wrestle you very successfully'

It was a rare note of levity during an evening in which Professor Stock repeatedly emphasised that her battle has always been with the idea of gender self-identification, not with transgender people themselves. 'We can disagree reasonably and still be friends,' she urged them.

Naïve, perhaps, but hardly the words of a war criminal."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12141319/ROBERT-HARDMAN-recounts-cancel-culture-cancelled-Oxford.html

That’s right Dickens, and the transpeople in the programme were all articulate and appeared to be living happily as their chosen sex. It was the students who showed disrespect and hatred to Stock - one made a point of expressing this before Stock even had a chance to speak in a debate about no-platforming and whether holders of all beliefs had a right to be heard. I think that was at Cambridge. You could see that she was shaken by it. So rude.

I may be misremembering some of the detail (GrannyRose might be able to correct me here if necessary), but from memory there was a transwoman (older than student age) who accepted that he was male, but wanted to ‘live as’ a woman, although realised that this concept (‘living as’ a woman) was meaningless. I’m not sure which pronouns he used, although he probably didn’t mind (and yes, I am making assumptions but I don’t remember) and he did refer to himself as having a male voice. He talked about how he’d been in the Ladies talking to a female friend through a cubicle wall and realised that if a woman had come in and heard his voice she would have been scared. He was so much more socially aware and considerate of others than the self-obsessed students deriding Stock, and accepted that everyone had to feel safe around one another. I think he was the one who is good friends with a radical lesbian who absolutely rejects the idea that TWAW, as each is able to respect the other’s point of view.

Another transwoman (who I think was a student - very young, anyway) said that the noise around so-called ‘gender’ issues made it difficult to live a normal life, as the temptation was to stay as inconspicuous as possible. Maybe as time goes by that will change, and possibly moving away from the febrile atmosphere of the university will make things easier. I hope so.

There were transmen too - including one who talked about having to give up on the idea of having children in order to transition, and how much of a sacrifice that had been, but set against the imperative of doing so there was no real choice.

All of these people were thoughtful, intelligent and confident. None of them questioned their right to be anything other than who they are (rightly) but there was none of the shouting and disregard for others in evidence in the supposedly educational environment of the universities. There has always been a certain amount of arrogance and absolute certainty surrounding youth (specially privileged youth), and maybe as the students mature they will mellow as most of us have. What remains to be seen, and what the programme didn’t explore, however, is whether the (unspecified) forces behind the extremism will capture future generations and indoctrinate them, too. If not, there is hope for a proper discussion and negotiated way forward, but that is unlikely to happen if the activists continue to silence contrary voices.

I recommend the programme to anyone who missed it. Is that a fair summary GrannyRose (or anyone else who saw it)?

VS I think your perception of life is very dictatorial, telling people how to think and behave, taking offence where none intended. Transphobia forvexample, trains can identify as they wish, no ones interested, but they are not biologically the the sex they identify as, no amount of chemicals and operations changes that. That is just the facts. To try to brow beat people into saying they think it is whenever they don't is ridiculous.

Namsnanny hmm well

Seeing as I'm awake and alone with my thoughts.

Many on this thread won't agree with me on what constitutes transphobic language, especially when it comes to protected beliefs and at the moment it is a bit difficult to navigate but it likely won't stay that way. There are scenarios we can look at that give hints of where it is headed.

Scenarios that are starting to run parallel with clamping down on racism and homophobia.

Hate crime

Transgender people are protected against hate crime. A hate crime is if the offender has demonstrated hostility based on transgender identity during an assault or been motivated to assault by hostility to transgender identity. So if a person were to assault a trans woman shouting that they are biologically a man and can't change sex, that would likely be classified as a hate crime as the crime is shown to have occured due to the victims trans status.

Trans people are afforded protections against discrimination under the equality act.

So work places cannot discriminate against trans people, and they also cannot create a hostile environment. So if a trans person were coming to work or school and facing someone staying "you can't change sex, you are a man" the employee or student can argue that creates a hostile environment and the organisation would need to investigate.

Many work places, organisations and platforms have policies in place for inclusive language and set their own rules for what language is considered hostile or transphobic. For work places this also includes employees social media and how they conduct themselves out of work. So if a worker is saying "you can't change sex, you are a man" this may violate their policies on trans inclusion.

We have historically seen many people lose their jobs after using racist or homophobic language. They won't be arrested for it but there are real world consequences. The same may already be happening in regards to transphobia and if it isn't, it likely will soon.

Then if we look at families and friendship groups. What members of family and friendship groups classify as transphobia also matters and that is another way that real life consequences may be implemented simply by saying that a trans women is a man.

That's my thoughts on it anyway, others will have a different perspective but I think it's a wait and see in 20 years or so like other issues

Doodledog

Did anyone see the Ch4 programme? It’s worth a watch if not. I think it’s pretty balanced and respectful of both ‘sides’.

Interestingly, as on GN, there is nobody arguing against the existence of transpeople (which is a concept I have only come across on here), or saying that they hate, fear or otherwise dislike them. Any hatred is coming the other way - against people like Kathleen Stock, who is at pains to make it clear that she doesn’t return it.

I will have to watch it I think.

Not sure where this idea that trans gender people shouldn't exist comes from either. In fact, they've probably existed for hundreds of years, if not more - without giving themselves a label... or even thinking too much about it. They just didn't conform to whatever their society's expectations were.

VioletSky

From what I've read Stock seems to be now championing herself as a polite moderate in this debate but her past history says sadly otherwise and she has come across as intolerant and hateful, which led to this

What do you think Kathleen Stock has said in the past?

Did anyone see the Ch4 programme? It’s worth a watch if not. I think it’s pretty balanced and respectful of both ‘sides’.

Interestingly, as on GN, there is nobody arguing against the existence of transpeople (which is a concept I have only come across on here), or saying that they hate, fear or otherwise dislike them. Any hatred is coming the other way - against people like Kathleen Stock, who is at pains to make it clear that she doesn’t return it.

VioletSky

Trans people should not have their existence debated

Although I think it was a talk, not a debate and in order to debate it trans people were forced to do so "outside"

Talk... More lecture actually

Trans people should not have their existence debated

I don't believe it's their existence that is being debated. They exist - that is a fact.

What is being debated are their assumptions and beliefs.

... and that is what debate is about. Any demographic, religious or political group, making claims that others outside of the group don't uphold, can be challenged and questioned. That is not to deny their existence, nor their right to exist.

To attempt to stop people from questioning beliefs and opinions that any particular group might want to impose on society is censorship. And to try to enforce it with threats of violence is ugly fascism.

Trans gender people have a right to hold their views and articulate them - and the rest of us, who will / would be impacted by such views, have a right to question them.

grannydarkhair

The talk by KS was interrupted for over 30 minutes when an activist glued her hand to the floor. She was freed by police and removed from the chamber. Her removal was loudly cheered.

twitter.com/hannahberrelli/status/1663602826101104641?s=61&t=qph6ruaz5B5GPjDn7jnZBw

I'd be tempted to leave her there. Take away any glue remover she'd brought with her, and shut the venue when the event was finished. I rather think her advocacy would evaporate if she soiled herself or got tired and cramped from the set position. It would confirm her absolute commitment to the cause though, not just a token "what a rebel am I?"

The talk by KS was interrupted for over 30 minutes when an activist glued her hand to the floor. She was freed by police and removed from the chamber. Her removal was loudly cheered.

twitter.com/hannahberrelli/status/1663602826101104641?s=61&t=qph6ruaz5B5GPjDn7jnZBw

It’s not about ‘deciding’ what people are - it’s describing it. I can’t decide that an otter is an elephant, and nor can they.

Every single transaction involving a surrogate to gestate a baby uses a biological woman. Why is that, when there are masses that proclaim TWAW? Surely amongst such a number there must be one transwoman that could be a surrogate? Isn't it odd that when it comes to a biological function suddenly the distinction is abundantly clear?

Thankyou to whoever mentioned the Channel 4 programme tonight. I found it very interesting. Two comments stood out for me. One was from the person who said that all most people want is to live their lives and be left alone. And the other was from the young Scottish woman who said she thought her generation should start discussing these issues amongst themselves and not leave it to older generations to get them out of the mess they have got themselves into ( I paraphrase). I thought the latter perceptive and encouraging.