I'm Really Worried I Have Upset My...
Family & Relationships3 mins ago
Dangerous Precedent?
https:/
In a nutshell, a woman has been sacked for expressing the view there are only two sexes. As far as I can tell she hasn't questioned the view there are more genders than sex.
She seems to have support.
Two questions...
1. Is it wrong to express the view there's only two sexes?
2. Has the judge set a nasty, dangerous precedent?
In a nutshell, a woman has been sacked for expressing the view there are only two sexes. As far as I can tell she hasn't questioned the view there are more genders than sex.
She seems to have support.
Two questions...
1. Is it wrong to express the view there's only two sexes?
2. Has the judge set a nasty, dangerous precedent?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Having read the judgement in full, it makes perfect sense to me:
https:/
https:/
What I think douglas means is if you introduce principles that make absolutely no sense, you must not be surprised if the senselessness is built upon.
It has been determined that people have been told that they can "identify" as whatever gender suits them when they wake up in the morning. It's only a sort step from that lunacy to rule that having beliefs contrary to that is heresy.
Of course it would be better if people explained their thinking properly instead of via Twitter and "Liking", "Unliking", "Following" and "Unfollowing". But I think I've got the gist and, as douglas says, if we sow lunacy we reap even more lunacy.
It has been determined that people have been told that they can "identify" as whatever gender suits them when they wake up in the morning. It's only a sort step from that lunacy to rule that having beliefs contrary to that is heresy.
Of course it would be better if people explained their thinking properly instead of via Twitter and "Liking", "Unliking", "Following" and "Unfollowing". But I think I've got the gist and, as douglas says, if we sow lunacy we reap even more lunacy.
I've now read some (though not all) of the judgement kindly provided by 'Chico. It seems to me the crux is this (para 77 of the report):
The core of the Claimant's belief is that sex is biologically immutable. There are only two sexes, male and female. She considers this is a material reality. Men are adult males. Women are adult females. There is no possibility of any sex in between male and female; or that is a person is neither male nor female. It is
impossible to change sex. Males are people with the type of body which, if all things are working, are able to produce male gametes (sperm). Females have the type of body which, if all things are working, is able to produce female gametes (ova), and gestate a pregnancy. It is sex that is fundamentally important, rather than “gender”, “gender identity” or “gender expression”. She
will not accept in any circumstances that a trans woman is in reality a woman or that a trans man is a man. That is the belief that the Claimant holds."
The judge went on later:
"I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society."
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the claimant's view. To be honest it's not something that troubles me too much. But she's been sacked because of her views, a court has upheld her dismissal and I find such intolerance of her intolerance intolerable.
The core of the Claimant's belief is that sex is biologically immutable. There are only two sexes, male and female. She considers this is a material reality. Men are adult males. Women are adult females. There is no possibility of any sex in between male and female; or that is a person is neither male nor female. It is
impossible to change sex. Males are people with the type of body which, if all things are working, are able to produce male gametes (sperm). Females have the type of body which, if all things are working, is able to produce female gametes (ova), and gestate a pregnancy. It is sex that is fundamentally important, rather than “gender”, “gender identity” or “gender expression”. She
will not accept in any circumstances that a trans woman is in reality a woman or that a trans man is a man. That is the belief that the Claimant holds."
The judge went on later:
"I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society."
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the claimant's view. To be honest it's not something that troubles me too much. But she's been sacked because of her views, a court has upheld her dismissal and I find such intolerance of her intolerance intolerable.
"...and I find such intolerance of her intolerance intolerable."
Love that.
I couldn't give a tinker's cuss if a man chooses to identify as a woman, or if he or she (if we are allowed to use such pronouns) identifies as a unicorn for that matter, it has no bearing on my life, and if that makes them feel good, then bloody good for them I say.
I couldn't possibly care any less if I tried.
But....
I do struggle with the zeigeist that I'm meant to accept and, more importantly, believe, that a man, biologically, can be a woman.
Am I wrong?
Love that.
I couldn't give a tinker's cuss if a man chooses to identify as a woman, or if he or she (if we are allowed to use such pronouns) identifies as a unicorn for that matter, it has no bearing on my life, and if that makes them feel good, then bloody good for them I say.
I couldn't possibly care any less if I tried.
But....
I do struggle with the zeigeist that I'm meant to accept and, more importantly, believe, that a man, biologically, can be a woman.
Am I wrong?
2. Has the judge set a nasty, dangerous precedent?
Precedent was already set in Nicholson v Grainger plc
This ruling merely follows the already set guidelines.
The appropriate test is to ask if a belief is genuinely held, not merely an opinion or viewpoint, a belief substantial enough to have an impact on human life and behaviour, the belief must be cogent, serious and cohesive, and finally, (the pertinent part) "worthy of respect in a democratic society and not conflict with fundamental rights of others."
One question that arises is whether on the facts, the judge ought to have found that the belief was not "worthy of respect in a democratic society."
In an assesment of the judgement I would conclude that the argument is not that the belief that there are two sexes was not worthy of respect, nor was it the belief that speech should not be compelled.
But that the action of refusing to call a 'trans' person byt their preferred pronoun was incompatible with human dignity, and this is what lead towards to the judges conclusions.
Understanding the legal position, my personal position is that it is orthognal to the act of discirmination whether the belief held is worthy of respect. The only relevant consideration ought to be whether the belief manifested itself in a way which was discriminatory itself.
One thing you might find interesting is that there is no such requirement for the belief to worthy of respect in regards to accepted religious belief. If Maya had relied upon some religious tenet of Islam for example, she'd likely have suceeded.
1. Is it wrong to express the view there's only two sexes?
Certainly it is not wrong to express any view, that is if you hold that we have a right to absolute and free expression where it does not contradict the rights of others.
The interesting component of this scenario is not the problem of censored speech, but rather the opposite compelled speech. Nonetheless the principle is the same, there is no right to compel another to act, claiming such a right is to suggest one has free dominion over another's autonomy, which is clearly unfounded.
Precedent was already set in Nicholson v Grainger plc
This ruling merely follows the already set guidelines.
The appropriate test is to ask if a belief is genuinely held, not merely an opinion or viewpoint, a belief substantial enough to have an impact on human life and behaviour, the belief must be cogent, serious and cohesive, and finally, (the pertinent part) "worthy of respect in a democratic society and not conflict with fundamental rights of others."
One question that arises is whether on the facts, the judge ought to have found that the belief was not "worthy of respect in a democratic society."
In an assesment of the judgement I would conclude that the argument is not that the belief that there are two sexes was not worthy of respect, nor was it the belief that speech should not be compelled.
But that the action of refusing to call a 'trans' person byt their preferred pronoun was incompatible with human dignity, and this is what lead towards to the judges conclusions.
Understanding the legal position, my personal position is that it is orthognal to the act of discirmination whether the belief held is worthy of respect. The only relevant consideration ought to be whether the belief manifested itself in a way which was discriminatory itself.
One thing you might find interesting is that there is no such requirement for the belief to worthy of respect in regards to accepted religious belief. If Maya had relied upon some religious tenet of Islam for example, she'd likely have suceeded.
1. Is it wrong to express the view there's only two sexes?
Certainly it is not wrong to express any view, that is if you hold that we have a right to absolute and free expression where it does not contradict the rights of others.
The interesting component of this scenario is not the problem of censored speech, but rather the opposite compelled speech. Nonetheless the principle is the same, there is no right to compel another to act, claiming such a right is to suggest one has free dominion over another's autonomy, which is clearly unfounded.
I’m slightly confused: what has got her into trouble is the apparent view that men cannot become women.
That isn’t the same thing as claiming that there are only two sexes or that gender self-identification can be taken too far.
Personally I strongly disagree with the first point of view while having strong sympathy with the other observations.
It is really a question of what you should or shouldn’t spout on eg Twitter whether in an unofficial or official capacity and the issue of tolerance on both sides.
That isn’t the same thing as claiming that there are only two sexes or that gender self-identification can be taken too far.
Personally I strongly disagree with the first point of view while having strong sympathy with the other observations.
It is really a question of what you should or shouldn’t spout on eg Twitter whether in an unofficial or official capacity and the issue of tolerance on both sides.
// But I think I've got the gist and, as douglas says, if we sow lunacy we reap even more lunacy.//
more lunacy than when we had sensible judge made rules
This "wisdom" could only come from a judge(*)
(*)"the longer this cases goes on the more convinced I am that....."
(IR bombers) they had to let them out eventually [17y]
2) "what are the bay-attles?" (Beatles, from a judge)
3) I regret there is not still the Death Penalty ! [er IRA non-bombers again]
4) what ! let one out they will have to let them all out !
Denning this time - - on the IRA bombers - they did (let them out)
5)Nothing to do with me iff the police choose to lie
Yup! IRA bombers Lord Taylor this time
Bring back Melford - Mel - good old Melly - Hanging Mel! Stevenson, thats what I say and so will say the rest of AB !
more lunacy than when we had sensible judge made rules
This "wisdom" could only come from a judge(*)
(*)"the longer this cases goes on the more convinced I am that....."
(IR bombers) they had to let them out eventually [17y]
2) "what are the bay-attles?" (Beatles, from a judge)
3) I regret there is not still the Death Penalty ! [er IRA non-bombers again]
4) what ! let one out they will have to let them all out !
Denning this time - - on the IRA bombers - they did (let them out)
5)Nothing to do with me iff the police choose to lie
Yup! IRA bombers Lord Taylor this time
Bring back Melford - Mel - good old Melly - Hanging Mel! Stevenson, thats what I say and so will say the rest of AB !
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Money Blog: Big Banks Announce Interest...
News10 mins ago
Could Labour Learn From The Donald?
News10 mins ago
Did Covid Change Your Lifestyle?
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Film, Media & TV17 mins ago
