Is JK Rowling pushing the boundaries too far?

Doodledog
There is more to this than pronouns. Or are you seriously saying that calling a male person ‘he’ is likely to incite hatred?
Sorry you've lost me. I don't think I've said any such thing.
But I don't see how denigrating legislation which protects the disabled, the old, religious belief and sexual orientation helps anyone.
No legislation is perfect, But asking for legal action on misogyny is a different matter to asking for sex to be included in this legislation.
You’re lost?? Really? Ok. The act is designed to prevent incitement to hatred. You brought pronouns into it. You said: Referring to someone by the chosen pronoun is simply using words it doesn't require you to believe anything. But choosing to denigrate a piece of legislation which protects some minorities is ignoring their needs, simply because of your personal views.
Do you believe that calling a male-born person ‘he’ is likely to incite hatred? Also, disagreeing with part of a law is not the same thing as ‘denigrating’ all of it. You really are wriggling.

Glorianny

Rosie51

www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill

The Bill creates a new crime of stirring up hatred against any of the protected groups covered by the Bill.

This Bill aims to do three things. It updates these existing laws and pulls most of these laws into one Bill. It also adds to the groups currently specifically protected by hate crime laws

I suppose this bit didn't suit the males and transwomen first argument. Still says forget the females suffering misogyny, we don't care one smidgeon.

Accusing a man on social media of assault could be regarded as a hate crime if sex were included in this legislation. how? For goodness' sake that would mean no woman could ever accuse a man of rape, because rape can only be done with a penis, something only male sex people have. You really are clutching at straws now.

Rosie51

www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill

The Bill creates a new crime of stirring up hatred against any of the protected groups covered by the Bill.

www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill

Rosie51

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny

Rosie51

But age, disability, religion and sexual orientation were not covered, nor was transgender.
Misogyny is a problem but there is some legislation which covers it. It isn't being applied.
Glorianny why do you think sex was not only left out of the original draft but the amendment to include it was voted against? Why would you specifically not want to protect people from hate because of their sex? It seems an odd deliberate act and continues to give men freedom to indulge their hatred of women, unless those women have an additional protected characteristic.

Well for one thing sex includes men. So if a woman was to accuse a man of assault or use social media to deal with actions they felt were abusive then they could be accused of stirring up hatred against him on the grounds of sex. I believe the crime you are seeking legislation for is misogyny. I've linked to a paper about this. There is already some legislation which isn't being applied properly. One requirement is that any legislation should be effective.

I don't mind the male sex having protection against hatred generated solely because of their sex, why would I? Men are humans too.
I believe the crime you are seeking legislation for is misogyny. I've linked to a paper about this. There is already some legislation which isn't being applied properly. Then all the more reason to include misogyny in this bill. They've included categories that are already covered by other legislation haven't they? Why is it only hate against females they are determined to exclude? Could it possibly be that they'd have to acknowledge that transwomen are of the male sex? I guarantee that if they keep their promise to bring forward a bill against misogyny transwomen, male sex people, will be included. Females can't have anything just for us.

So you would virtually close down the "Me too" movement because it denigrates men?
It's far more important to look at why the legislation in place already isn't working and ensure that proper effective legislation is introduced than just to stick the word "sex" into this legislation

???? I really don't follow your thought process. The "Me too" which seems to have died a death anyway (misogyny yet again?) does not denigrate all men, only those who have abused women.
If you believe in equality and fairness for all why are you so happy for misogyny legislation to be left ignored on the back burner? Why is misogyny legislation the hardest of all to formulate according to you? There are categories included in this bill already covered by other legislation so why were they included again in this?

Accusing a man on social media of assault could be regarded as a hate crime if sex were included in this legislation.
I'm not happy for misogyny to be left on a back burner. I simply don't think including the word "sex" would help with eliminating it.
Misogyny legislation is hard to introduce and to enforce because it is entrenched in society and isn't easily eliminated or even recognised.
Which categories were already covered?

As we're discussing sex and gender on here when is a women's team not a women's team? There are 5 males out of 11 on this women's team, will a sixth tip the balance?
reduxx.info/exclusive-women-drop-out-of-australian-football-division-after-five-trans-identified-males-dominate-womens-league-leave-female-players-injured/

Rosie51

Glorianny

Rosie51

But age, disability, religion and sexual orientation were not covered, nor was transgender.
Misogyny is a problem but there is some legislation which covers it. It isn't being applied.
Glorianny why do you think sex was not only left out of the original draft but the amendment to include it was voted against? Why would you specifically not want to protect people from hate because of their sex? It seems an odd deliberate act and continues to give men freedom to indulge their hatred of women, unless those women have an additional protected characteristic.

Well for one thing sex includes men. So if a woman was to accuse a man of assault or use social media to deal with actions they felt were abusive then they could be accused of stirring up hatred against him on the grounds of sex. I believe the crime you are seeking legislation for is misogyny. I've linked to a paper about this. There is already some legislation which isn't being applied properly. One requirement is that any legislation should be effective.

I don't mind the male sex having protection against hatred generated solely because of their sex, why would I? Men are humans too.
I believe the crime you are seeking legislation for is misogyny. I've linked to a paper about this. There is already some legislation which isn't being applied properly. Then all the more reason to include misogyny in this bill. They've included categories that are already covered by other legislation haven't they? Why is it only hate against females they are determined to exclude? Could it possibly be that they'd have to acknowledge that transwomen are of the male sex? I guarantee that if they keep their promise to bring forward a bill against misogyny transwomen, male sex people, will be included. Females can't have anything just for us.

I guarantee that if they keep their promise to bring forward a bill against misogyny transwomen, male sex people, will be included.

That is exactly what will happen. It will have to. Because the Bill accepts that if a man says he's a woman, then he is and therefore must be included in any legislation pertaining to women. Otherwise, he will suggest that he is being discriminated against.

So basically, a transwoman will have more rights than a woman, on the basis that he feels like one. And a biological woman will have less rights - because she is one.

Callistemon21

^Hate crime for sexual orientation has increased rapidly in Scotland^
I wonder why?

As I said before all hatred generates more hatred. Why doesn't really matter though does it? This legislation provides protection. Which has to be a good thing.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny

Rosie51

But age, disability, religion and sexual orientation were not covered, nor was transgender.
Misogyny is a problem but there is some legislation which covers it. It isn't being applied.
Glorianny why do you think sex was not only left out of the original draft but the amendment to include it was voted against? Why would you specifically not want to protect people from hate because of their sex? It seems an odd deliberate act and continues to give men freedom to indulge their hatred of women, unless those women have an additional protected characteristic.

Well for one thing sex includes men. So if a woman was to accuse a man of assault or use social media to deal with actions they felt were abusive then they could be accused of stirring up hatred against him on the grounds of sex. I believe the crime you are seeking legislation for is misogyny. I've linked to a paper about this. There is already some legislation which isn't being applied properly. One requirement is that any legislation should be effective.

I don't mind the male sex having protection against hatred generated solely because of their sex, why would I? Men are humans too.
I believe the crime you are seeking legislation for is misogyny. I've linked to a paper about this. There is already some legislation which isn't being applied properly. Then all the more reason to include misogyny in this bill. They've included categories that are already covered by other legislation haven't they? Why is it only hate against females they are determined to exclude? Could it possibly be that they'd have to acknowledge that transwomen are of the male sex? I guarantee that if they keep their promise to bring forward a bill against misogyny transwomen, male sex people, will be included. Females can't have anything just for us.

So you would virtually close down the "Me too" movement because it denigrates men?
It's far more important to look at why the legislation in place already isn't working and ensure that proper effective legislation is introduced than just to stick the word "sex" into this legislation

???? I really don't follow your thought process. The "Me too" which seems to have died a death anyway (misogyny yet again?) does not denigrate all men, only those who have abused women.
If you believe in equality and fairness for all why are you so happy for misogyny legislation to be left ignored on the back burner? Why is misogyny legislation the hardest of all to formulate according to you? There are categories included in this bill already covered by other legislation so why were they included again in this?

"Me too" was also about facts.

Aveline

Elegran I had a go at the consultation but it's a typical Scottish government clunky format. They really don't want to be disagreed with.

They can't even draft a consultation document. I have spent two hours trying to fill it in, but I give up.

If this gets through without a lot of revision, we will all end up in clink for 7 years. See you in Saughton. Bring the tranquillisers, we'll need them.

Glorianny

Callistemon21

Glorianny

Callistemon21

denigrating it because you simply disapprove of one of the minorities it does protect is illogical

No-one has said they disapprove of minorities.

What they are saying is that people cannot change sex.

That's your opinion. Referring to someone by the chosen pronoun is simply using words it doesn't require you to believe anything. But choosing to denigrate a piece of legislation which protects some minorities is ignoring their needs, simply because of your personal views.

No, it is a fact.

I can call someone by their chosen pronoun and would I most cases but it doesn't alter the facts.

Bt a totally irrelevant fact here.

I was answering you.

I hadn't refreshed the page, my last post was in answer to Glorianny at 23:11:32

Callistemon21

Glorianny

Callistemon21

denigrating it because you simply disapprove of one of the minorities it does protect is illogical

No-one has said they disapprove of minorities.

What they are saying is that people cannot change sex.

That's your opinion. Referring to someone by the chosen pronoun is simply using words it doesn't require you to believe anything. But choosing to denigrate a piece of legislation which protects some minorities is ignoring their needs, simply because of your personal views.

No, it is a fact.

I can call someone by their chosen pronoun and would I most cases but it doesn't alter the facts.

Bt a totally irrelevant fact here.

It could also have protected women, females, but chose not to. In fact there were those actively fighting including the protection of women. Why would anyone actively oppose the protection of the female sex..............

Hate crime for sexual orientation has increased rapidly in Scotland
I wonder why?

Rosie51

Glorianny

Rosie51

But age, disability, religion and sexual orientation were not covered, nor was transgender.
Misogyny is a problem but there is some legislation which covers it. It isn't being applied.
Glorianny why do you think sex was not only left out of the original draft but the amendment to include it was voted against? Why would you specifically not want to protect people from hate because of their sex? It seems an odd deliberate act and continues to give men freedom to indulge their hatred of women, unless those women have an additional protected characteristic.

Well for one thing sex includes men. So if a woman was to accuse a man of assault or use social media to deal with actions they felt were abusive then they could be accused of stirring up hatred against him on the grounds of sex. I believe the crime you are seeking legislation for is misogyny. I've linked to a paper about this. There is already some legislation which isn't being applied properly. One requirement is that any legislation should be effective.

I don't mind the male sex having protection against hatred generated solely because of their sex, why would I? Men are humans too.
I believe the crime you are seeking legislation for is misogyny. I've linked to a paper about this. There is already some legislation which isn't being applied properly. Then all the more reason to include misogyny in this bill. They've included categories that are already covered by other legislation haven't they? Why is it only hate against females they are determined to exclude? Could it possibly be that they'd have to acknowledge that transwomen are of the male sex? I guarantee that if they keep their promise to bring forward a bill against misogyny transwomen, male sex people, will be included. Females can't have anything just for us.

So you would virtually close down the "Me too" movement because it denigrates men?
It's far more important to look at why the legislation in place already isn't working and ensure that proper effective legislation is introduced than just to stick the word "sex" into this legislation

Glorianny

Callistemon21

denigrating it because you simply disapprove of one of the minorities it does protect is illogical

No-one has said they disapprove of minorities.

What they are saying is that people cannot change sex.

That's your opinion. Referring to someone by the chosen pronoun is simply using words it doesn't require you to believe anything. But choosing to denigrate a piece of legislation which protects some minorities is ignoring their needs, simply because of your personal views.

No, it is a fact.

I can call someone by their chosen pronoun and would I most cases but it doesn't alter the facts.

Hate crime for sexual orientation has increased rapidly in Scotland
www.statista.com/statistics/626037/sexual-orientation-hate-crimes-in-scotland/
People with learning disabilities are twice as likely to be victims of hate crime than the non-disabled.
This Bill protects these people.

Glorianny

Rosie51

But age, disability, religion and sexual orientation were not covered, nor was transgender.
Misogyny is a problem but there is some legislation which covers it. It isn't being applied.
Glorianny why do you think sex was not only left out of the original draft but the amendment to include it was voted against? Why would you specifically not want to protect people from hate because of their sex? It seems an odd deliberate act and continues to give men freedom to indulge their hatred of women, unless those women have an additional protected characteristic.

Well for one thing sex includes men. So if a woman was to accuse a man of assault or use social media to deal with actions they felt were abusive then they could be accused of stirring up hatred against him on the grounds of sex. I believe the crime you are seeking legislation for is misogyny. I've linked to a paper about this. There is already some legislation which isn't being applied properly. One requirement is that any legislation should be effective.

I don't mind the male sex having protection against hatred generated solely because of their sex, why would I? Men are humans too.
I believe the crime you are seeking legislation for is misogyny. I've linked to a paper about this. There is already some legislation which isn't being applied properly. Then all the more reason to include misogyny in this bill. They've included categories that are already covered by other legislation haven't they? Why is it only hate against females they are determined to exclude? Could it possibly be that they'd have to acknowledge that transwomen are of the male sex? I guarantee that if they keep their promise to bring forward a bill against misogyny transwomen, male sex people, will be included. Females can't have anything just for us.

Doodledog

There is more to this than pronouns. Or are you seriously saying that calling a male person ‘he’ is likely to incite hatred?

Sorry you've lost me. I don't think I've said any such thing.
But I don't see how denigrating legislation which protects the disabled, the old, religious belief and sexual orientation helps anyone.
No legislation is perfect, But asking for legal action on misogyny is a different matter to asking for sex to be included in this legislation.

A reminder of what we’re fighting.

There is more to this than pronouns. Or are you seriously saying that calling a male person ‘he’ is likely to incite hatred?

Callistemon21

^denigrating it because you simply disapprove of one of the minorities it does protect is illogical^

No-one has said they disapprove of minorities.

What they are saying is that people cannot change sex.

That's your opinion. Referring to someone by the chosen pronoun is simply using words it doesn't require you to believe anything. But choosing to denigrate a piece of legislation which protects some minorities is ignoring their needs, simply because of your personal views.