Respecting people’s boundaries
More.
What is “ownership of their own identity”? This fool seems to take it to mean “people are what they say they are” – which is an abjectly ridiculous claim. No people don’t “own” their idenniny in the sense that if they say they’re a mouse then they’re a mouse.
We own very little, in fact. We’re thrown into the world, as the existentialists put it. We can change, we can acquire talents, we can curl our hair, but the range is pretty narrow. That’s just reality.
Yeah it’s like chocolate – some people like it, some don’t.
So policy is to lie to raped women, to tell them they’ll be seeing a woman when in fact they’ll be seeing a man. How enlightened.
Shameless lie after shameless lie.
How can they respect boundaries when they don’t know what the boundaries are?
How can they respect boundaries when they don’t accept what the boundaries are?
If someone has “ownership of their own identity”, where exactly does that end? Surely it’s not a special pleading applicable to only trans people? Quite apart from Ophelia’s examples, what will ERCC do when a rapist identifies as a rape victim and wants to take part in group therapy sessions so they can get off on victims recounting their experience and trying to process the resultant feelings?
It’s Humpty Dumpty all the way down
I’m guessing that trans people are the only ones allowed to have boundaries, and that everyone else’s must give way or fall before them. The feelings of TiMs over-ride the needs of the vulnerable women they’re actually supposed to be, supposedly, serving. Instead, they’re using rape victims as props in some morality play that’s being staged in their minds, in which they’re the good guys, valiant trns allies, teaching the bigoted survivors of sexual assault to “reframe their trauma” for the benefit of men pretending to be women.
I imagine these staff members testifying must feel like they’re before some sort of Reverse Inquisition. By not cracking, and not admitting it’s all bullshit, and not saying that Wadwa is a man, they’re showing the strength of their faith in the face of the cruel, pointed questions of Unbelievers. In their comfortable little self-reinforcing, self-important, self-righteous bubble, they likely don’t get a lot of pushback they can’t haughtily dismiss as bigotry. Now they are being held accountable for their delusional, dangerous beliefs. It is a remarkable performance. Pathetic and disgusting, but remarkable nonetheless.
At what point do courts get fed up with this nonsense and start holding witnesses in contempt for pretending that words mean other than what they mean? Or referring witnesses for prosecution for perjury when they make manifestly false statements in the service of their bespoke definitions?
The entire substance of a judicial proceeding is ultimately words, words, and words. If you can’t rely on the meaning of words, you no longer have a viable process.
But they also claim ownership of everyone else’s too, declaring the rest of us to be “cis,” whether we accept that or not. They also get to determine who is a woman, who is a lesbian, conveniently “including” themselves in groups to which they do not belong, but the definitions of which they now claim control. They decry everyone else’s “gatekeeping,” but double down on their own.
They’ve managed to recruit a disappointingly large number of women who have become useful idiots in their own subjugation. God help them if they should ever need the services of the facilities they’ve so earnestly helped to destroy.
Steven,
The answer is never.
Perjury and contempt charges are not there to force people to say things you want them to say simply because you get annoyed that they’re saying things that you don’t think are true. Even if they’re saying things that you think are objectively false and not a matter of opinion. After all, if the truth is so clear, why do you need this witness to say it? At that point you’re just after obedience, not information.
This witness isn’t misleading the tribunal. It’s clear in context what this witnesses’ beliefs are. Threatening charges because the witness isn’t agreeing to adopt the other side’s theory of the case would be an abuse of power. It would be just as abusive as if a judge threatened a witness with charges for refusing to testify that “trans women are women.”
#3 Steven
I remember having Humpty Dumpty quoted at me as if I were making up language as I went… when I was the one looking to the dictionary listing of ‘woman’ and he was the one using it willy nilly.