Define “bigotry” Jo
Foxkiller giving us our orders again.
Employers should protect staff from bigotry, yes, but what are we defining as “bigotry”? Foxie of course is defining not believing that men are women as “bigotry,” which is just silly. He doesn’t expect us to believe he’s a woman, so why does he expect us to believe other men are women simply because they say they are? He’s a lawyer ffs: surely lawyers are sharply aware that people often say things that are not true.
And no, replacing “trans” with “gay” or “disabled” in the phrase “staff who question trans rights” doesn’t help. Why not? Because we’re talking about different things. Gay rights and disabled rights are the familiar kind – no persecution or bullying, no refusal to hire or serve in a shop or rent accomodation to, no exploitation or oppression. Trans “rights” are a different kind of thing altogether: they’re about forcing us to agree that they are what they say they are even though we know they’re not; they’re about “including” them as the sex they say they are even though we know they’re not; they’re about taking women’s prizes and jobs and facilities even thought they’re men. They’re not actually “rights” at all, they’re more like a con game.
Maya’s views are not “a problem.” Maugham’s on the other hand…
The genderists, actually pretty much all the so-called “social justice” types, have this weird fixation on the words rather than the words’ meaning.
So, Jolyon, let’s say I’m a proponent of shooting kittens with dart guns. When people call me a monster and try to get me to stop via legal means, I argue that I am entitled to shoot kittens with dart guns. It is, in fact, something I call null rights. Trying to take away my right to shoot kittens with dart guns is just like Jim Crow or the Final Solution. Try replacing “null” with “black” or “Jewish”, if you can’t see the problem.
See how it kinda matters what you mean by “[word] rights”, Fox Boy?
I’ll leave this here as tangentially related. Here is an example of a trans woman athlete maintaining that people such as them and Hubbard should not have to lower their testosterone levels, because that would have negative health implications and impair their performance – which would be unfair. FFS.
Key excerpt:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/women-in-sport/300309941/the-detail-kiwi-athlete-laurel-hubbard-set-to-be-first-transgender-olympian-but-why-did-it-take-so-long
Maya Forstater tweeted “Men cannot change into women.”
“Replace ‘Trans’ with ‘gay’ or ‘disabled’ if you can’t see why Maya’s views are a problem.”
Ok. I’ll pick “gay”
“Gay people cannot change into straight people.”
Not seeing it.
Sastra, that is actually considered the proper sentiment, even. To suggest that gay people turn into straight people leads to conversion therapy. And black people cannot turn into white people…and they shouldn’t have to. So, yeah, he’s wrong. Except he uses his own version of what she said, which bears no resemblance to what she said…or the media’s version. He wants us to think “questions trans rights” is an accurate description of what she said, which of course it isn’t. So, yeah, we don’t see the problem, but people who don’t bother to find out what she really said (and he certainly isn’t going to tell them) will believe his version.
He’s banking on that.
Rob, that’s absolutely jaw-dropping. Is this really the next step in TRA justification? ‘Well, we’re actually women, because TWAW, but because we’re women who have XY chromosomes we need our testosterone and it’s unfair to deprive us of it!’
Women don’t just have to let “Laurel” take their weightlifting medals, they have to let him have all his testosterone back, and then keep doing it?
Maybe we can get “Kristen” Worley to testify the same exact thing in a case about transing children:
A certain magazine has taken to use of the appellation “the vulpicidal” when referring to a certain lawyer. No point, just something that amused.