Gender-neutral passports legal case tossed

[hetrodoxly]

2 minutes ago, FLOMBIE said:

It has nothing to do with 1984. Have you even read that book?

it's great that you don't care. Others do! It's about being decent to OTHER PEOPLE. 

Do you really think that is asking much of you? Let me tell you something: I am a hetero man. I am into women, real women and not trans women, and I don't even know if I can perceive those as regular women, but calling them she doesn't have anything to do with it. They want it, I do it, no biggie. And it certainly doesn't change my way of thinking. How would it?

I have never seen a transsexual with a full beard. Only drag queens, and they are just dressing up. By the way, I am not talking about the loonies here. I bet you've come across a few trans people and didn't even notice it.  

You're building a strawman and appear to be just looking for an argument, if you want to be 'decent to OTHER PEOPLE' accept my point of view.

[hetrodoxly]

2 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

It has nothing to do with 1984. Have you even read that book?

You obviously haven't.

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

[FLOMBIE]

3 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

You're building a strawman and appear to be just looking for an argument, if you want to be 'decent to OTHER PEOPLE' accept my point of view.

I accept your point of view, I just cannot understand it. 
 

How is calling a transsexual by their preferred pronoun changing the way you think? I think you might be creating a strawman. Would the world change if you'd do that?
 
What's the strawman? I fail to see it. And I am having trouble because you very selectively answer my question which I ask to clear things up. 

[hetrodoxly]

Just now, FLOMBIE said:

I accept your point of view, I just cannot understand it. 

That's fine, you don't know everything.

 

2 minutes ago, FLOMBIE said:

my question which I ask to clear things up. 

You're asking why i think as i do?

[FLOMBIE]

1 minute ago, hetrodoxly said:

You obviously haven't.

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

But that isn't newspeak. He and she has always been there, just as people who felt like the other gender. I am not talking about the made up bs like „demisexual“ or people asking to be called „xi/xer“. Just about man and woman. And intersex, which is well below .1%. 
 

I am really just trying to find out what is so rejectable about it. You will prolly never have any contact to these people anyway. 

[FLOMBIE]

1 minute ago, hetrodoxly said:

That's fine, you don't know everything.

 

You're asking why i think as i do?

I am trying to find out the reasoning behind hollow sentences like: „Are you trying to change the way I think?“ 

When I try to narrow that down, you back up. It's frustrating. 

I know my direct way of writing can come across kinda harsh, but no offense was meant whatsoever. 

[hetrodoxly]

1 minute ago, FLOMBIE said:

But that isn't newspeak. He and she has always been there, just as people who felt like the other gender. I am not talking about the made up bs like „demisexual“ or people asking to be called „xi/xer“. Just about man and woman. And intersex, which is well below .1%. 
 

I am really just trying to find out what is so rejectable about it. You will prolly never have any contact to these people anyway. 

What are you asking for? i've said more than once i'd call someone what they wanted me to call them, what don't you understand? i just don't want it made a crime not to do so.

[FLOMBIE]

It should only be a crime in a case of harassment. 
I think if you legally change your gender, you have a right to be referred to by that gender. Why wouldn't you?

[hetrodoxly]

3 minutes ago, FLOMBIE said:

I am trying to find out the reasoning behind hollow sentences like: „Are you trying to change the way I think?“ 

This is where me and you are so different, my thoughts aren't hollow, i can't just do something because i've been instructed to do so.

 

1 minute ago, FLOMBIE said:

It should only be a crime in a case of harassment. I think if you legally change your gender, you have a right to be referred to by that gender. Why wouldn't you?

 No one should be harassed, we've already done that, i don't 'think' it should be a crime to call a male female or female male. 

[FLOMBIE]

3 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

This is where me and you are so different, my thoughts aren't hollow, i can't just do something because i've been instructed to do so.

 

 No one should be harassed, we've already done that, i don't 'think' it should be a crime to call a male female or female male. 

Are you trying to insult me? I am very capable of my own thoughts, mate. I think our chat proves that very well. To whom do you think I bow to?

Not per se, no. I and I have yet to see that it is. The cases I could find were clear harassment. 

Edited April 4, 2020 by FLOMBIE

[hetrodoxly]

45 minutes ago, FLOMBIE said:

Are you trying to insult me? I am very capable of my own thoughts, mate. I think our chat proves that very well. To whom do you think I bow to?

Not per se, no. I and I have yet to see that it is. The cases I could find were clear harassment. 

 No one should be harassed, we've already done that, i don't 'think' it should be a crime to call a male female or female male. that's what i think.

[+and-then]

On 3/11/2020 at 11:14 AM, hetrodoxly said:

Ugly people will just have to accept they're ugly.

Life gets less complicated after that choice.  I speak from experience.

[Setton]

6 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

 

People in the UK have been arrested for 'misgendering'

 

Source? 

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

Source? 

Yeah.. source ? Under precisely WHAT UK law would somebody in the UK be "arrested" for "misgendering". ? 

I "utter b******s" detector is flashing at me. 

[hetrodoxly]

40 minutes ago, Setton said:

Source? 

Google it.

[+and-then]

47 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeah.. source ? Under precisely WHAT UK law would somebody in the UK be "arrested" for "misgendering". ? 

I "utter b******s" detector is flashing at me. 

If that is actually accurate then you have my condolences.  They try that in many states here and politicians will be unemployed and people who otherwise had been polite and accepting of differences will become exactly what they've been falsely accused of previously.  Ironic, innit?

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

 No one should be harassed, we've already done that, i don't 'think' it should be a crime to call a male female or female male. that's what i think.

This sums up my attitude as well.  I don't pretend to understand the whole gender "fluidity" concept but I do understand having good manners with as many people as will reciprocate.  If I use a pronoun based on my perception of a person's physical appearance and they correct me (politely) I will be more than happy to acknowledge their wish.  Someone gets nasty because I don't recognize their "choice" then they'll just have to get over it.  Involve legal sanctions for that kind of mistake and the issue of gender relations is going to become fraught with peril for them as well.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, FLOMBIE said:

It should only be a crime in a case of harassment. 
I think if you legally change your gender, you have a right to be referred to by that gender. Why wouldn't you?

I agree on this in principle but we know that these situations are rarely clearly defined.  Who defines what constitutes "harassment"?  I assume that if a coworker or other member of a person's universe of contacts has made that legal change, they don't carry documentation or go out of their way to tell everyone they meet of their legal choice.  Is it harassment  if  someone uses the wrong pronoun even after being corrected once?  How many times can a single individual use the incorrect pronoun before they are "harassing"?  

I have no doubt that some people are just nasty, unpleasant and unwilling to change for anyone.  There are others that revel in causing anger, chaos and emotional pain to anyone they want to.  THAT kind of behavior is obviously wrong but if there is no physical violence or threat of violence, do we really want to criminalize it?  If we carve out special groups rights as being more important than others, where does that path take us?

I grew up being daily insulted and ridiculed for obesity.  That's brutal for a kid and even worse for a teen.  I guess you could call it the last acceptable bigotry.  I got through that because I had family a few good friends who took the time to get to know ME, not just judge my appearance.  That's life.  All of us suffer indignities at the hands of thoughtless, even cruel people.  I tend to believe that giving government at any level, even the slightest increase in power to force compliance on citizens is a negative that needs to be avoided.  Sticks and stones, remember?  The tipping point for that is threats of or use of physical violence.  Where I grew up, you can usually get by with running your mouth some.  Laying hands on a stranger can be a deadly dangerous situation, though.  

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, FLOMBIE said:

Or are you only worried about unfair advantages sports?

That is the only substantive issue I have with the gender movement.  Biology isn't affected by a person's decision that they "feel"  they are a sex other than the one their chromosomes assigned them.  Their bodies will  exhibit the muscle mass and density, bone density and other effects of the sex hormones that are common to their biological sex.

Increasingly, we are seeing biological males use all that biological advantage against females who have trained and worked for years in a sport and who are good enough - against females - to be awarded a very valuable scholarship.  It is NOT bigotry or hate to demand that this be changed.  I think that Title IX should be amended to create opportunities for transgender athletes.  They have every right to compete in college sports.  There should be a mechanism based on overall body weight and muscle mass beyond which they cannot compete with those of their "chosen" sex.  That's simple, fair and could be quantified.

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, FLOMBIE said:

"Hi, my name is hetrodoxly." 

- "No, you look like a Tom."

"No, it's hetrodoxly!"

- "Okay, Tom."

 

That's how I see it. It's not like you'd have to go out of your way, or something. When you know, you know, and it's basic human decency. Do you know people who hate their given name, and want to be refered to only by their nickname? People generally do that; if they are not jerks. But if hey switch genders, it's wrong? It doesn't even change your thinking.

I understand your point and I agree that CHOOSING to ignore a person's wishes can be offensive and annoying.  I'd counter that your example isn't really a good analogy.  Using a person's name isn't the same as them demanding to be referred to as (insert pronoun) when throughout our entire history, there have only been TWO choices.  This isn't a minor or inconsequential change they are demanding.  It takes time for people to adjust and some, especially older people, just refuse.

My point, again, is how far are we willing to go to cause behavioral compliance in otherwise inoffensive persons?  In a free country based on compromise, where do we draw a line on purely social issues?

[Setton]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Using a person's name isn't the same as them demanding to be referred to as (insert pronoun) when throughout our entire history, there have only been TWO choices. 

Then you should have no problem referring to a trans woman as a woman. It's one of your 'two choices' after all. 

[itsnotoutthere]

13 hours ago, Setton said:

Then you should have no problem referring to a trans woman as a woman. It's one of your 'two choices' after all. 

Depends on whether you're being honest or just saying it so you don't hurt his feelings.

[Still Waters]

Thread cleaned (again) -  Let's keep comments civil and on topic please.

[hetrodoxly]

16 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeah.. source ? Under precisely WHAT UK law would somebody in the UK be "arrested" for "misgendering". ? 

I "utter b******s" detector is flashing at me. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-47638527

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html

https://spectator.us/misgendering-child-british-journalist/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/02/23/teacher-accused-misgendering-child-told-police-committed-hate/

There's more if you want them, that detectors 5hit.

Edited April 5, 2020 by hetrodoxly

[RoofGardener]

I couldn't read all of those quotes, @hetrodoxly, as some of them block adblockers. However, in no case had anyone been prosecuted for 'misgendering' ? Apart from anything else, no law exists on the statute books against it.