Calm Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Well and good, but I think, though others' mileage may vary, that that's rather a horse of a different color from being asked to learn and to keep straight a whole series of pronouns when referring to students who identify in non-traditional ways. Why? Both names and pronouns are just labels we choose to call each other. If we can manage to call each student in a class a likely unique name (with at times very unusual, counterintuitive spellings), why would it be more difficult to use a limited set of pronouns? 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Calm said: Why? Both names and pronouns are just labels we choose to call each other. If we can manage to call each student in a class a likely unique name (with at times very unusual, counterintuitive spellings), why would it be more difficult to use a limited set of pronouns? Because, while a nickname likely would be used only infrequently in a typical conversation, pronouns are ubiquitous. Furthermore, I’ve never understood use of a person’s nickname by a teacher in a classroom setting to be a mandatory thing such that use of the person’s proper name by said teacher is typically regarded as a slur or insult. Edited June 28, 2022 by Scott Lloyd 1
Calm Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Because, while a nickname likely would be used only infrequently in a typical conversation, pronouns are ubiquitous. Teachers are much more likely to use names than pronouns since they are addressing a group though, I am guessing. I will ask my sister, who teaches grade 5, if you want. Though if pronouns are used even more frequently than names, they would be that much easier to remember. I am not talking about civility, but practicality with Ken. He was saying using pronouns would be difficult to keep straight.
manol Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Calm said: I am not talking about civility, but practicality with Ken. He was saying using pronouns would be difficult to keep straight. It can be tiring for me and my past-its-use-by-date brain. In a conversation with or about a transgendered person who I have known for a long time before they transitioned, and/or with or about a person I have known by another name for many years (and who does not want to be "deadnamed"), I have to divert some of my limited CPU capacity to monitoring my speech to make sure I don't slip into using the words which were my default for many years. This makes carrying on a long-duration conversation tiring for me, particularly if the subject matter is also CPU-intensive. That being said, I have never been met with anything other than appreciation for my efforts, even when I slip up and have to correct myself. It's never been treated like a big deal. Edited June 29, 2022 by manol 2
Calm Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 I would assume if you already know someone it is much harder and it depends on how your brain works. My dad was on occasion spelling my name Chris up to the month before he died. My mom never made an error as soon as I told her. 1
Tacenda Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 1 hour ago, manol said: It can be tiring for me and my past-its-use-by-date brain. In a conversation with or about a transgendered person who I have known for a long time before they transitioned, and/or with or about a person I have known by another name for many years (and who does not want to be "deadnamed"), I have to divert some of my limited CPU capacity to monitoring my speech to make sure I don't slip into using the words which were my default for many years. This makes carrying on a long-duration conversation tiring for me, particularly if the subject matter is also CPU-intensive. That being said, I have never been met with anything other than appreciation for my efforts, even when I slip up and have to correct myself. It's never been treated like a big deal. When I've d in the schools this past year I flubbed up twice and called a boy a she and a girl a he. They dressed and wore their hair like the opposite gender of their birth, both times they were very forgiving. This was in elementary school. I felt so bad, times are a changin.
smac97 Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, Analytics said: Only if you refuse acknowledge the existence of definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Only if you refuse acknowledge the existence of definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Only if you refuse acknowledge the existence of definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. ... I never said nor implied that "woman" can mean anything anyone anywhere wants it to mean. I simply acknowledge the existence of definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If a known biological man says she is a woman, I simply try to understand what she means by that. Full stop. That is because you refuse acknowledge the existence of definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. ... If you acknowledge the existence of definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, A and B are both acceptable definitions, and as long as it is clear from the context which definition you are using and are consistently sticking to that definition, you aren't equivocating. ... Since I acknowledge the existence of both definition 1 and definition 1b of "female" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it's obvious that they are in fact two different things. If you don't think they are two different things, you are the one that's equivocating. Oh, boy. If a word doesn't mean what you want it to mean, just have some functionary arbitrarily add a radical new definition to it. Convenient, that. Also creepily Orwellian. This is you disputing my comments about your side of the debate resorting to Orwellian tactics, is it? First off, we've been principally discussing the word "woman." And yet slipped on past citing the Merriam-Webster definition of "woman" in favor of "female" because, I suspect, it has not (yet) been re-defined to kowtow to the radical idealogues with Orwellian tendencies. Merriam-Webster defines "woman" as: Quote Definition of woman 1a: an adult female person b: a woman belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combinationcouncilwoman 2: WOMANKIND 3: distinctively feminine nature : WOMANLINESS 4: a woman who is a servant or personal attendant 5achiefly dialectal : WIFE b: MISTRESS c: GIRLFRIEND sense 2 6: a woman who is extremely fond of or devoted to something specifiedI'm a chocolate woman through and through, but one bite of West's banana pudding cupcake and I was sold. No reference to "gender identity" there. Not yet, anyway. I guess it takes time for you Orwellian types to persuade dictionaries to insert inanities into basic definitions. "Woman" can trace its origins back to the 8th century or so. But here you are, relying on one dictionary that arbitrarily and radically re-defined its inherent meaning in . . . 2020. Boy, nothing bespeaks authenticity like a radical re-definition of a basic word that is, comparatively speaking, about five minutes old. See here (from September 2020) : Quote The Merriam-Webster dictionary has update its definition of “female” to include “having a gender identity that is opposite of male,” effectively erasing the concept of biological sex. Angering female activists. The dictionary added to its primary definition of female, which is defined as, “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.” Merriam-Webster’s sub-definitions, which seemingly erase the reality of biological sex, include – having a gender identity that is the opposite of male – made up of usually adult members of the female sex – designed for or typically used by girls or women – having a quality (such as small size or delicacy of sound) sometimes associated with the female sex This would not be the first time Merriam-Webster has moved to satisfy the mounting demands of transgender activists. Female Activist Kellie-Jay Keen says: “From the start of my dictionary definition campaign, I was certain that our language was in danger. This is a sinister but expected turn. There is no time left for naivety or ignorance, all human rights reliant upon truth are in jeopardy. If we cannot be named, we cannot be protected.” And here (from July 2020) : Quote Notably, the new definition conflicts with the dictionary’s official description of “woman,” which is defined as “an adult female person.” Merriam-Webster defines “female” as “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs” — a function a trans woman is, biologically, incapable of. And here (from September 2020) : Quote In the latest example of the contemporary lexicon evolving to suit the whims of intersectional ideologues, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary has officially updated its definition of “female” to include “having a gender identity that is opposite of male.” The dictionary entry for “female” primarily defines the word as “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.” One would think that the primary definition would be the only definition, at least insofar as the word “female” is used to describe any organism or creature rather than electrical cables or plumbing fittings. Instead, Merriam-Webster’s several sub-definitions for the word all but erase the actual meaning of the word by allowing wiggle room to accommodate those who may or may not believe they are female, including: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male made up of usually adult members of the female sex designed for or typically used by girls or women having a quality (such as small size or delicacy of sound) sometimes associated with the female sex This is far from the first time the revered dictionary publisher has altered our very language in order to cater to the rising tide of transgenderism. As we reported last year, the dictionary sought to legitimize transgender use of the word “they” by declaring it their Word of the Year. In a press release, the company announced that it chose “they” for its word of the year as a hat tip to the gender theory language anarchists. The word, which has several different uses according to Merriam-Webster’s definition, can be “used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary.” Back in July, the dictionary also updated its definition of “trans woman” to “woman who was identified as male at birth,” effectively decimating any dividing line between real, actual, natural-born human females and men who want to be women. And here: Quote It finally happened folks. Give it some time and the definition will turn into "non-men". Merriam-Webster Dictionary Updates Definition of Female The Merriam-Webster dictionary appeared to update its definition of “female” to include “having a gender identity that is opposite of male,” effectively erasing the concept of biological sex. This would not be the first time Merriam-Webster has moved to satisfy the mounting demands of transgender activists. As Breitbart News reported in July, Merriam-Webster updated its definition of Some feminists have remained at odds with transgender activists, who they contend are gradually erasing women to bend to the “woke” mob. Natasha Chart, a feminist writer at FeministCurrent.org who has openly spoken out against radical transgender ideology and the effects it has on women, told Breitbart News that she is “disappointed” to witness the “fall of important cultural institutions, like dictionary publishers, to woke social media mobs and belligerent, junior employees.” “Everyone knows what women are, and that we aren’t defined by a state of mind that a man can have. I don’t have a ‘gender identity.’ I bore a child by means of my female body, not a state of mind, and it disrespects every mother and child to suggest otherwise,” she added. Huh. Natasha Chart seems to think that your revised definition of "female" is disrespectful. So can we expect you to be as solicitous to "politeness" toward women as you are toward biological males who "identify" as women? Or is that whole "polite" thing one of those "That's different because shut up" kind of things? A dictionary that has re-defined "female" to "erase the reality of biological sex." A dictionary that has re-defined "female" to include people who by definition cannot meet the primary definition. According to MW, a biological male can be an "adult female person," where "female" is by definition those who have "the capacity to bear young or produce eggs." Including biological males in the definitions of "woman" and "female" may well prove to be the apex of Orwellian distortion and revisionism. Let's look at a few further definitions of "woman," shall we? https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/woman Quote 1An adult female human being. 1.1A female member of a workforce, team, etc. 1.2with modifier A female person associated with a particular place, activity, or occupation. 1.3in singular Female adults in general. 1.4A disrespectful form of address to a woman. 1.5 dated A female person who is paid to clean someone's house and carry out other domestic duties. 1.6A person's wife, girlfriend, or female lover. 1.7A person with the qualities traditionally associated with females. ‘I feel more of a woman by empowering myself to do what is right for me’ 1.8in singular A female individual; one. If you down a brewskie, squint and hop on one leg, definition 1.7 above kinda sorta suits your needs. But not really. Now let's look at "female": https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female Quote 1. Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes. ‘a herd of female deer’ 1.1Relating to women or the female gender. ‘a female name’ 1.2(of a plant or flower) having a pistil but no stamens. 1.3(of parts of machinery, fittings, etc.) manufactured hollow so that a corresponding male part can be inserted. Bummer. No radical, Orwellian, brand-spanking-new woke re-definitions in there. Moving on... "Woman" in https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/woman Quote noun an adult female person synonyms:adult female see more noun women as a class synonyms:fair sex, womanhood see more noun a human female employed to do housework “I have a woman who comes in four hours a day while I write” synonyms:char, charwoman, cleaning lady, cleaning woman see more noun a female person who plays a significant role (wife or mistress or girlfriend) in the life of a particular man see less Antonyms: man a male person who plays a significant role (husband or lover or boyfriend) in the life of a particular woman type of: female, female person a person who belongs to the sex that can have babies Nope. No Orwellianisms there. "Female" at that website: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/female Quote female Add to list Share The female animals are the ones who can have babies. They’re not males. Girls and women are female humans, but there are male and female animals of all kinds. Just ask Noah. Female animals are those that produce ova, which are fertilized by the spermatozoa of males. The main difference between females and males is that females bear the offspring — and that goes for dogs, chickens, catfish, and anything in between. There are even male and female squash flowers. The word female is used equally as a noun and an adjective. For example, the female lead in a play is inevitably a female. adjective being the sex (of plant or animal) that produces fertilizable gametes (ova) from which offspring develop “a female heir” “female holly trees bear the berries” Synonyms: egg-producing, young-bearing capable of producing eggs and bearing offspring pistillate having gynoecia, or pistils, the ovule-bearing organ of a seed plant feminine associated with women and not with men see more adjective characteristic of or peculiar to a woman “female suffrage” synonyms:distaff feminine associated with women and not with men adjective for or pertaining to or composed of women or girls “the female lead in the play” “a female chorus” noun an animal that produces gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes (spermatozoa) see more noun a person who belongs to the sex that can have babies synonyms:female person Nope. No Orwellianisms here either. "Woman" at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/woman Quote 1. COUNTABLE NOUN A woman is an adult female human being. ...a young Lithuanian woman named Dayva. ...men and women over 75 years old. ...women prisoners. 2. UNCOUNTABLE NOUN You can refer to women in general as woman. ...the oppression of woman. 3. COUNTABLE NOUN [supplement NOUN] If you say that a woman is, for example, a gambling woman or an outdoors woman, you mean that she likes gambling or outdoor activities. She is an avid outdoors woman. I'm too old to have a dog now. I'm a cat woman. 4. COUNTABLE NOUN [n-proper N] If you say that a woman is, for example, a London woman or an Oxford woman, you mean that she comes from London or Oxford, or went to university there. ...a 38-year-old London woman. The headmistress was an Oxford woman. 5. COUNTABLE NOUN [with supplement] You can refer to a female representative of a company or organization as that company or organization's woman. [journalism] Yet another successful Labour woman took her seat. She was a senior BBC woman. 6. COUNTABLE NOUN [poss NOUN] Some people refer to someone's wife, lover, or girlfriend as their woman. [informal] Synonyms: girlfriend, girl, wife, partner More Synonyms of woman 7. VOCATIVE NOUN People sometimes address a woman as 'woman' when they are ordering her to do something or when they are angry or impatient with her. This use could cause offence. [offensive] And "female" - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/female Quote 1. ADJECTIVE Someone who is female is a woman or a girl. ...a sixteen-piece dance band with a female singer. Their aim is to have equal numbers of male and female MPs. Only 13 per cent of consultants are female. Synonyms: womanlike, woman, lady More Synonyms of female femaleness UNCOUNTABLE NOUN They are under pressure to negate their femaleness. 2. COUNTABLE NOUN Women and girls are sometimes referred to as females when they are being considered as a type. Hay fever affects males more than females. 3. ADJECTIVE [ADJECTIVE noun] Female matters and things relate to, belong to, or affect women rather than men. ...female infertility. ...a purveyor of female undergarments. I realize there's no consensus on what are male or female values. 4. COUNTABLE NOUN You can refer to any creature that can lay eggs or produce babies from its body as a female. Each female will lay just one egg in April or May. Female is also an adjective. ...the scent given off by the female aphid to attract the male. 5. ADJECTIVE [usually ADJECTIVE noun] A female flower or plant contains the part that will become the fruit when it is fertilized. Figs have male and female flowers. Nothing here. "Woman" in https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=woman Quote n. pl. wom·en(wĭmĭn) 1. An adult female human. 2. Women considered as a group; womankind: “Woman feels the invidious distinctions of sex exactly as the black man does those of color” (Elizabeth Cady Stanton). 3. An adult female human belonging to a specified occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination: an Englishwoman; congresswoman; a saleswoman. 4. A female servant or subordinate. 5. Informal a. A wife. b. A female lover or sweetheart. See Usage Notes at chairman, female, lady, man. "Female" in https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=female Quote fe·male (fēmāl′) Share: adj. 1. a. Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young. b. Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex in humans and other animals: female hormones; female fashions. c. Consisting of members of this sex. See Usage Note at lady. 2. Of or denoting the gamete that is larger and less motile than the other corresponding gamete. Used of anisogamous organisms. 3. Botany a. Designating an organ, such as a pistil or ovary, that functions in producing seeds after fertilization. b. Bearing pistils but not stamens; pistillate: female flowers. 4. Designed to receive or fit around a complementary male part, as a slot or receptacle: the female end of an extension cord. n. 1. A female organism. 2. A woman or girl. No wokeness here, either. "Woman" in https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/woman Quote 1 COUNTABLE an adult female person We need more women in government. Synonyms and related words + 1a ONLY BEFORE NOUNused for saying that someone who does something is a woman the first woman prime minister a study of women writers Synonyms and related words + 1b SINGULAR all women considered as a group the stereotype of woman as helpless victim Synonyms and related words + 1c SPOKENa rude way of addressing a woman when you are annoyed Stop panicking, woman! Synonyms and related words + 1d INFORMALyour girlfriend, wife, or partner. Some people think this use is offensive Have you met his new woman? "Female" in https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/female_1 Quote 1 a female person or animal belongs to the sex that can produce babies or eggs 1a a female plant is one that produces fruit 2 a female part of a machine has a hole in it into which a male part fits No wokeness here. "Woman" in https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman?q=woman_1 Quote A1 [ C ] an adult female human being: a wife or female sexual partner: women in general: "Female" in https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman Quote B1 belonging or relating to women, or the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs: Female plants produce flowers that will later develop into fruit. used to refer to a piece of equipment that has a hole or space into which another part can be fitted: B2 a female animal or person: used to refer to a woman in a way that shows no respect: of the sex that can produce eggs and give birth to young: a female person or animal: belonging or relating to women: a woman or girl: No wokeness here. "Woman" in https://www.yourdictionary.com/woman Quote An adult female human. Being an adult human female. An adult female human. An adult female human belonging to a specified occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination. Women considered as a group; womankind. Of or characteristic of a woman or women; feminine. An adult female human being. An adult female human. Woman of a (specified) kind, in a (specified) activity, etc. An adult female human belonging to a specified occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination. The female human being. (collective) All females collectively; womankind. The definition of a woman is an adult female human. An example of a woman is Michelle Obama. "Female" in https://www.yourdictionary.com/female Quote A woman or girl. A female organism. Designating or of the sex that produces ova and bears offspring. A female person; woman or girl. Consisting of women or girls. Of, characteristic of, or suitable to members of this sex; feminine. A female is defined as a person of the sex that produces eggs and can bear young. The definition of female is something related to the sex that produces an egg and that can bear children, or the part of a machine, tool or fitting that is hollow so that the male end of the tool can be inserted. One of the female (feminine) sex or gender. A human member of the feminine sex or gender. An animal of the sex that produces eggs. (botany) A plant which produces only that kind of reproductive organ capable of developing into fruit after impregnation or fertilization; a pistillate plant. Possessing or being a structure that produces only female gametes. The ovaries of humans are female reproductive organs. Female flowers possess only carpels and no stamens. Belonging to the sex which typically produces eggs, which in humans and most other mammals is typically the one which has XX chromosomes; belonging to the sex which has larger gametes (for species which have two sexes and for which this distinction can be made). A woman or girl. In organisms that reproduce sexually, being the gamete that is larger and less motile than the other corresponding gamete (the male gamete) of the same species. The egg cells of higher animals and plants are female gametes. Belonging to the feminine (social) gender; identifying one's gender as feminine (see gender identity). Finally! Found another Orwellian revision! "Woman" in https://www.wordsmyth.net/?ent=woman Quote an adult female human. women in general; womankind. female. "Female" in https://www.wordsmyth.net/?level=3&ent=female Quote any human being or animal of the sex that produces eggs or conceives and bears young. a woman or girl. belonging to the sex that produces and nurtures offspring. of or pertaining to female persons or to feminine qualities or behavior. "Woman" in https://www.dictionary.com/browse/woman Quote an adult female person.Compare man (def. 1), girl (def. 1). a female employee or representative:A woman from the real estate agency called. Informal. a wife. a female lover or sweetheart. Older Use:Usually Offensive. a female employee who cleans a house, cooks, etc.; housekeeper. (in historical use) a female attendant to a lady of rank:Your woman informed us of your travel plans. the nature, characteristics, or feelings often attributed to women; womanliness:He has always loved and admired the woman in her. women collectively:Woman is no longer subordinate to man. "Female" in https://www.dictionary.com/browse/female Quote adjective relating to or being a woman or girl. Biology. of, relating to, or being a person with a certain combination of sex characteristics, commonly including two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei, a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and enlarged breasts developed at puberty. of, relating to, or being an animal, plant, or plant structure of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells during reproduction. of, relating to, or characteristic of a female person; feminine:female suffrage;female charm. comprising women or girls:a female readership. Botany. designating or pertaining to a plant or its reproductive structure that produces or contains elements requiring fertilization. (of seed plants) pistillate. Machinery. being or having a recessed part into which a corresponding part fits:a female plug.Compare male (def. 3). noun a female person.See Usage note at the current entry. Biology. an animal, plant, or plant structure of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells during reproduction. "Woman" in https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman Quote woman (n.) "adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant" (8c.), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens "wife," literally "woman-man." Nothing about "gender identity" in there. "Female" in https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=female Quote female (n.) early 14c., from Old French femelle "woman, female" (12c.), from Medieval Latin femella "a female," from Latin femella "young female, girl," diminutive of femina "woman, a female" ("woman, female," literally "she who suckles," from PIE root *dhe(i)- "to suck"). WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride, He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside. But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male. [Kipling] Sense extended in Vulgar Latin from young humans to female of other animals, then to females generally. Compare Latin masculus, also a diminutive (see masculine). Spelling altered late 14c. in erroneous imitation of male. In modern use usually as an adjective (early 14c.). Reference to implements with sockets and corresponding parts is from 1660s. "Woman" in http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/woman Quote Wom´an n. 1. 1. An adult female person; a grown-up female person, as distinguished from a man or a child; sometimes, any female person. Women are soft, mild pitiful, and flexible. - Shak. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman. - Gen. ii. 22. I have observed among all nations that the women ornament themselves more than the men; that, wherever found, they are the same kind, civil, obliging, humane, tender beings, inclined to be gay and cheerful, timorous and modest. - J. Ledyard. 2. The female part of the human race; womankind. Man is destined to be a prey to woman. - Thackeray. 3. A female attendant or servant. Woman hater one who hates women; one who has an aversion to the female sex; a misogynist. - Swift. v. t. 1. To act the part of a woman in; - with indefinite it. 2. To make effeminate or womanish. 3. To furnish with, or unite to, a woman. Noun 1. woman - an adult female person (as opposed to a man); "the woman kept house while the man hunted" Synonyms: adult female Antonyms: adult male, man - an adult male person (as opposed to a woman); "there were two women and six men on the bus" 2. woman - women as a class; "it's an insult to American womanhood"; "woman is the glory of creation" Synonyms: womanhood 3. woman - a human female who does housework; "the char will clean the carpet" Synonyms: charwoman, cleaning lady, cleaning woman, char 4. woman - a female person who plays a significant role (wife or mistress or girlfriend) in the life of a particular man; "he was faithful to his woman" Antonyms: man - a male person who plays a significant role (husband or lover or boyfriend) in the life of a particular woman; "she takes good care of her man" "Female" in https://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/female Quote Fe´male n. 1. An individual of the sex which conceives and brings forth young, or (in a wider sense) which has an ovary and produces ova. The male and female of each living thing. - Drayton. 2. (Bot.) A plant which produces only that kind of reproductive organs which are capable of developing into fruit after impregnation or fertilization; a pistillate plant. a. 1. Belonging to the sex which conceives and gives birth to young, or (in a wider sense) which produces ova; not male. As patient as the female dove When that her golden couplets are disclosed. - Shak. 2. Belonging to an individual of the female sex; characteristic of woman; feminine; as, female tenderness. To the generous decision of a female mind, we owe the discovery of America. - Belknap. 3. (Bot.) Having pistils and no stamens; pistillate; or, in cryptogamous plants, capable of receiving fertilization. "Woman" in https://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=woman&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG Quote woman noun (women) An adult female human being. "Female" in https://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=0&Keyword=female&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG&v_PageSize=25 Quote Definitions female noun Someone of feminine sex or gender. Something of feminine sex or gender. adjective Belonging or referring to the sex which is generally characterized as the one associated with the larger gametes (for species which have two sexes and for which this distinction can be made). (context, figurative, electronics) Having an internal socket, as in a connector or pipe fitting. (rfphoto) Etymology: From femelle, from femella "a female", from femella "a young female, a girl", diminutive of femina "a woman". So, it looks like Orwellian revisions have made inroads as to at least two dictionaries. While we're playing around, let's take a look at definitions of "gender identity." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender identity Quote : a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/gender identity Quote your identity as it is experienced with regard to your individuality as male or female, both male and female, or neither; awareness normally begin in infancy and is reinforced during adolescence https://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/gender-identity Quote a person's inner sense of being male or female, usually developed during early childhood as a result of parental rearing practices and societal influences and strengthened during puberty by hormonal changes. Also called Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gender-identity Quote a person's inner sense of being male or female, usually developed during early childhood as a result of parental rearing practices and societal influences and strengthened during puberty by hormonal changes. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/gender+identity Quote An individual's self-identification as being male, female, neither gender, or a blend of both genders. Kinda hard to say that this is synonymous with "woman" or "female." 5 hours ago, Analytics said: If we agree that a woman is a "female adult human," Yes. 5 hours ago, Analytics said: than a woman is either a biological female or somebody with a female gender identity. No. No. This is Orwellian. This is nonsensical. A biological male cannot, by definition, be a "female adult human." 5 hours ago, Analytics said: Presuming the individual in question isn't being dishonest about their biological sex, then from the context of the sentence it going to be clear which definition they are using. You continue to prove my point. You are equivocating. You are conflating. Lia Thomas is a biological male. By definition he is excluded from the definition of "female adult human." 5 hours ago, Analytics said: Finally, equivocation means, "The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument." Yes. Examples include "Trans women are women," and "Lia Thomas, a biological male, is a 'female adult human.'" Your cited source - Merriam-Webster - contradicts itself. It defines “woman” as “an adult female person” and “female” as “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.” This is intrinsically incoherent. A. "Lia Thomas, an adult male person, 'identifies' as a 'woman'"; and B. "A 'woman' is 'an adult female person'" and C. "'Female' means 'of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs'" ergo D) "Lia Thomas, an adult male person, 'identifies' as being 'an adult female person,' as 'being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.'" An adult male person can, in your view, simultaneously be an adult female person, even though he inherently lacks the characteristics that define what a "female" is ("the capacity to bear young or produce eggs." You may as well try to say that I can simultaneously be both 48 years old and 68 years old. Or that I can "identify" as a badger or a brown dwarf star or a pygmy orchid. Since we are A) tossing out defining attributes/characteristics, and B) adding inherently incoherent Orwellianisms to the dictionary, why not? "Gender Identity" is not the only "Let's dispense with factual reality and conflate Orwellian neologisms with foundational words and concepts" game in town. "Species/Otherkin identity" is likely on its way up. 5 hours ago, Analytics said: If one is using definitions in a consistent way, they aren't equivocating. There is nothing "consistent" in defining "female" as including males, or in defining "women" as including "men" who "identify" as such. Lia Thomas is a biological male competing against biological females because the Powers-that-Be are conflating "biological sex" with "gender identity." Caitlyn Jenner literally altered the biological sex on her birth certificate from "male" to "female." The examples are endless. 5 hours ago, Analytics said: I've been very consistent in how I use these words. If Lia Thomas claims she's a woman, And if "woman" means "female," and if "female" means "not male," then that claim is nonsensical (even if some parts of society have elected to ratify it). 5 hours ago, Analytics said: I know from her personal history that she is claiming to have a female gender identity. She is not claiming to be biologically female. Right. Equivocation. "Woman" means both "adult human female" and "anyone who identifies as a woman." We've been through this rigmarole before. 5 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm not going to insist that she "is a woman." I'm simply going to try to understand what she means when she claims she is. Are you sure? "I'm simply going to try to understand" is worlds apart from you advocating for compulsory "peronal pronoun" laws. "I'm simply going to try to understand" is also not particularly compatible with the preceding sentence in which you state that she "is not claiming to be biologically female," and that you "know" this "from her personal history." This article, authored by Sophie Allen, is pretty good: Quote We are often asked to believe that transwomen are women. Many people are happy to accept this claim but those who disagree are treated to ridicule or abuse until most dare not speak up. Yep. We've seen this happen in this very thread. Quote As a philosopher, this worries me. We should be able to question the truth of any claim without causing offence, but I cannot imagine that I will get away lightly from doing so here. I feel ya, sister! Quote In this piece, I argue that those who think that it is true that transwomen are women do not have a coherent, unequivocal definition of ‘woman’, and thus whatever they do understand by the term should not form the basis of legislation. Oh, amen to that. Imagine a statute that defines "woman" as "anyone who identifies as woman." Imagine a statute that defines "woman" as "an adult human female, and also anyone who at any time chooses to 'identify' as such." Yeesh. Quote In brief, if we say that being a woman has nothing to do with having female biology, as is required by accepting that transwomen are women, then there are three unattractive options: (1) being a woman is essentially tied to traditional social stereotypes of what being a woman involves; (2) there is no difference between women or men, or a large number of people are both or neither; or, (3) it is impossible to tell whether someone is a woman or not. Yep. Those are the logical consequences of your reasoning, Roger. "Woman," when fundamentally severed from biological reality, becomes meaningless. It has either sieve-like parameters or no meaningful parameters at all. It can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. If folks like you can re-define "woman" to include "gender identity," as "anyone who identifies as a woman," then the gates are wide open to it being re-defined in any of a million other ways. There are no limiting principles. As to point (1), "being a woman is essentially tied" to biology, with social constructs arising in relation thereto, both naturally and by social expectation/imposition. This is at odds, I think, with transgender sentiments, which posit that "being a woman is essentially tied to" physiological and behavioral expressions of things typically and broadly associated with womanhood (breasts, women's clothing, make-up, hair, etc.). As to point (2), she is quite right. This is not only an "unattractive" option, but an unscientific and patently inaccurate one. As to point (3), well, that's where the rubber hits the road. "Woman" loses any essential meaning. It is an infinitely malleable word, meaning only what the individual subjectively and arbitrarily decides it means, no more and no less. Quote None of these three options is a workable definition of ‘woman’ and yet, if we remove external checks on which male-bodied people are permitted to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate and thereby legally become women under a new version of the UK Gender Recognition Act, the law will be committed to at least one of these three options. This article was published in 2018, and it looks like her concern has already come to pass: Quote Apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate ... Proof you’ve lived in your acquired gender This proof must cover the required time that you’ve lived in your acquired gender. It could include copies of your: passport driving licence payslips or benefit documents utility bills or other documents of an official nature All documents should be in your acquired name and gender. The earliest document must be dated before the beginning of the required time. And here: Quote To qualify for recognition under this provision you must be able to prove that you have lived full time in your acquired gender for at least two years before the date of your application. Therefore, in this section, we ask you to tell us the date from which you can demonstrate that you have been living full time in your acquired gender and we ask you to provide supporting evidence. ... Evidence could take a variety of forms. The following lists some examples: • Official documentation e.g. driving licence and passport; • Payslips or HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) documents such as a P60 or P45; • Department of Work and Pensions or HMRC benefit or tax letters or documents; • Bank or other financial institution documents or statements; • Letters from official, professional or business organisations such as from solicitors, accountants, dentists, doctors, employers or letters from people who know you on a personal basis; • Utility bills; • Academic certificates or documentation; • Health Care or identity cards including photo ID issued by an official organisation. ... In addition to proving that you have lived for two years in your acquired gender, you must provide medical evidence that you have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder or transsexualism. Evidence must come from either a doctor registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) or a registered psychologist registered with the Health and Care Professions Council. Please note that since November 2009 this means that the doctor must be both registered with the GMC and also hold a licence to practise. Since you are applying on the basis of having lived for two years or more in your acquired gender, you need to provide two reports with your application. You should list the reports in the table at section 11 of the application form, along with the other evidence that you are submitting. This just seems awfully strange. The essense of this is that "in order to be legally recognized as a woman, you must be diagnosed with a mental health condition pertaining to you 'identifying' as female when you are biologically male (or vice versa), and after 2 years of acting as if that falsehood were true, fill out this paperwork and the government will go along with it." "Being a woman" is, in the UK, a matter of all three options above, none of which are correct. Quote These definitional difficulties disappear if we admit biological sex as a determining factor of whether someone is a woman. Yep. But such an admission is flatly incompatible with the trans movement, which wants to sever concepts like "woman" and "female" from "biological sex" and instead treat them as being anything anyone wants them to be, but typically centered around stereotypical physical expressions (clothes, hair, make-up, medical procedures, etc.). Quote This may still permit some transexuals with severe dysphoria to count as women (if there turns out to be a biological basis for their condition which could be verified), and it is still consistent with insisting that people who regard themselves as transgender should be able to live their lives free of discrimination and abuse. I agree that invidious discrimination, and any abuse, are inappropriate and wrong. Quote I would like to emphasise that I have repeatedly asked trans activists who are in favour of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act to provide me with a definition of ‘woman’, or an account of what a woman is, which does not fall foul of my criticisms below. But I have yet to be given any except ones which fall under the unacceptable options (1), (2) and (3). Yep. The refusal to coherently define "woman" goes back to 2018, and likely even further back than that. Quote It is claimed (by transgender people and those who support them) that the gender to which transgender people belong does not match the biological sex to which they belong, or (in more extreme versions of the theory) that biological sex does not in fact exist or that sex is non-biological and determined by gender. In all these cases, a person’s gender is independent of their biological sex: being female is irrelevant to being a woman. This has been my understanding of these claims as well. Quote But, once one divorces gender from biological sex like this, it is very difficult to see what the gender categories man and woman are. Either being a woman is associated with gender roles, social roles and behaviour which women typically perform, or it is based on something internal to a person, the feeling of being a woman, perhaps. 1) If we accept the former account of womanhood which considers performing certain womanly gender roles as determining who is a woman, this makes being a woman depend upon a stereotype of femininity such as wearing dresses and make-up, nurturing, rearing children, being emotional and so on. Yep. Stereotypes, not biology. That's the purported basis. Quote This version of womanhood is regressive, since it is based on a stereotype which females have fought against for centuries now, and would often regard as being imposed upon them rather than being intrinsic to their nature. This is an important point. I have read a number of articles written by women who feel disrespected by the meaning of "woman" being reduced to crude, flamboyant, often highly sexualized, stereotpyes, as typified by "Drag Queen" excesses. Quote It is also deeply implausible: engaging in stereotypically feminine behaviour cannot be sufficient to count as a woman, since this would imply that females who break with feminine stereotypes and engage in stereotypically manly behaviour are not women but men. A definition of ‘woman’ which makes many females transgender regardless of how they feel about it themselves is clearly untenable. Yep. I do not "become" a wolf by breaking with my homo sapiens "stereotypes" (walking upright, speaking with words and phrases and grammar, wearing clothes, etc.) and "identifying" as a wolf or mimicking lupine behaviors. And this is internally incoherent as well. External expressions and behaviors canot be the defining attribute of "woman." Quote 2) If we broaden the account of womanhood based on gender roles to say that the categories woman and man are not anchored to the traditional, mutually-exclusive stereotypical roles, then the distinction between women and men disappears. This broader view ditches the traditional restrictive stereotypes and allows that men and women can do anything the other does; but then one can legitimately ask where the difference between them lies. If a woman and a man can engage in exactly the same roles and types of behaviour, and yet performance of that role is what determines the difference between them, then there is no difference between them. (Remember: biology can’t be used here if one thinks that people can be transgender at all.) Yep. Excluding biology from the equation really ends up taking us to some weird and untenable places. Quote 3) Given that outward manifestations of behaviour or the performance of social roles does not determine what a woman is, we now turn to accounts which assert that gender is based upon something internal to the individual; a deeply held feeling or conviction that one is ‘in the wrong body’ or that one is a woman (although male-bodied). This version of the definition invites philosophical questions about what this ‘feeling’ is and how we can accurately determine whether it is present. As will be seen, I think, inwardly-held "feelings" cannot form the basis for being a "woman" any more than outward expressions of stereotypical behaviors/roles can. Quote The biological basis for this feeling is extremely controversial: there are no notable differences between male brains and female brains except size, for instance; and the equivocal evidence which indicates apparent differences between trans women and non-trans males is only seen in those with gender dysphoria severe enough to seek hormone treatment and full surgery, people who are already covered by the GRA 2004. We could allow that it is possible that there is a biological basis for feelings of being transgender in such people, and thus will exclude them from the discussion. But these pre- and post-op transexuals are now a minority in the transgender community, which leaves a large number of transgender people who are not dysphoric with no biological basis for their condition. This presents some serious problems: What is this feeling based upon if it is not biological? Why do people seem to lack this feeling if they are not transgender? How is it different to being convinced one is a dog, or had a past life, or is younger than one’s true age? (The belief that one is an animal is not particularly uncommon among children, but we do not affirm that they are a different species.) Fair questions, these. Quote It is extremely unwise to accept any and every individual’s affirmation that they are transgender without further evidence. Yes. Yes it is. And even after ostensible "further evidence" comes in. Lia Thomas will never be a woman. Quote First, there are good philosophical reasons based in the work of Wittgenstein to think that the criteria for kind membership must be public to be meaningful: ‘woman’ has no meaning if it can mean different things to different individuals in virtue of private, subjective feelings when no-one has a way to ascertain whether the feelings reported by different people are of the same type. It sure would be interesting to see Roger explain to Sophie how utterly wrong she is on this point, and about how "woman" can "mean different things to different individuals in virtue of private, subjective feelings." Quote Second, as I have shown in research on human kinds, an individual’s affirmation that he or she belongs to a certain kind, or has a certain condition, is unreliable: some individuals say this to deliberately mislead, while others hold a genuine belief about being of a certain kind when they are not of that kind. Social pressures, the environment, and the attitudes of peers and others can influence someone to accidentally self-identify as a group to which they do not belong. People may sincerely believe that they are of that kind, and if accepted into the group, their conviction may strengthen as other people treat them as belonging; in the case of gender identity, they may sincerely believe that they are women and this believe will gain credence if others confirm it, even if they are not. (The fairytale of The Emperor’s New Clothes is relevant here.) Furthermore, other male-bodied people may deliberately self-identify as women in order to gain access to women-only spaces. These are important, but decidedly impolitic, observations. Quote This situation presents difficulties both legally and philosophically: eligibility for a GRC should not be made available to everyone who claims to have a subjective feeling that they are a woman. Kinda hard to place any constraints or parameters on this when folks like Roger want to radically re-define words/categories like "woman" and "female." Quote On this account, anyone who says they are a woman would count as a woman, and that seems both dangerous to females and absurd. Yep. And yet excluding biology as the lodestar for defining "woman" and "female" necessarily allows precisely that. Quote To avoid these consequences, it is important to retain some gate-keeping procedure which determines whether someone is eligible to change gender or not. Yeah, good luck with that. When a "woman" is "anyone who 'identifies' as a woman," there is no coherent "gate-keeping procedure." Anyone who wants to can walk through the gate at will. Quote However, even this medical or legal gate-keeping is problematic. In the case of people who believe themselves to have diseases or psychiatric disorders, it is possible to observe and diagnose fairly reliably on the basis of symptoms, and to rule out those who are mistakenly affirming that they have a particular condition. But as we have seen above it is impossible to characterise what a woman is on the basis of gender roles and how an individual acts without relying upon out-dated stereotypes of woman which many women would reject. Thus, unlike in the case of other kinds which humans belong to, there is no external, observable evidence that a male-bodied person is really a woman. Quite true. Quote None of the available options (1), (2), (3), or combinations of these, gives a workable account of what a woman is which is not tied to traditional gender stereotypes. There is no feminist way to understand what a woman is in such as a way that it could be true that transwomen are women. Oh, Sophie Allen, you impetuous, impolitic person, you! Thanks, -Smac Edited June 29, 2022 by smac97
filovirus Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 On 6/22/2022 at 4:06 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said: The church teaches sex/gender are eternal. What is the eternal definition of a woman? Is it the evolved mammary glands? The ovaries? The womb? Do these things have meaning in the eternities? Genuine question. Please provide the definitive eternal definition of the word “woman” please. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/transgender-understanding-yourself/how-does-the-church-define-gender?lang=eng “Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” is biological sex at birth.” 1
Analytics Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 (edited) 17 hours ago, smac97 said: I am not equivocating. LOL. Earlier I said: In general, people have the right to be as rude as they want. For example, you may be as rude to me as you want. Go for it. I can handle it. But I do think compelling people to use polite speech in certain circumstances is appropriate. People should be compelled to speak the truth when they testify under oath. People should be compelled to be respectful to judges in courtroom settings. People should be compelled to leave their politics, impoliteness, and religious beliefs at home when they accept jobs as teachers or staffers at nursing homes. To this, you replied: 17 hours ago, smac97 said: Yep. I was right. Compelled speech. That is where you are going. You are on board with the government using coercive threats of fines and imprisonment in order to compel private citizens to say things they do not want to say, and/or which they do not believe to be factually true or accurate. You've got to be kidding me. I said "people should be compelled to speak the truth when they testify under oath," and you interpret this as me saying people should be compelled to say "what they do not believe to be factually true or accurate." Is today opposite day or something? 17 hours ago, smac97 said: I am happy to say that the laws does not agree with you... Really? It is legal to lie under oath? CFR. You won't be held in contempt of court if you are flagrantly disrespectful to judges while in court? CFR. The Constitution grants teachers the right to say anything they want in the classroom? CFR. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: ...and that people like me remain largely protected from the coercive predelictions of people like you (that is, people who are advocating for compelled speech relative to "preferred pronouns"). I didn't say that. I said the opposite. I said, "you may be as rude to me as you want. Go for it. I can handle it." Again, is today opposite day? ----------------------------------------------------------- In response to me pointing out that you deliberately refuse to acknowledge the existence of definitions you don't like so that you can obstinately refrain from understanding other people, you said: 11 hours ago, smac97 said: Oh, boy. If a word doesn't mean what you want it to mean, just have some functionary arbitrarily add a radical new definition to it. Convenient, that. Also creepily Orwellian. That is not how words and definitions are added to the dictionary. Dictionary definitions reflect the definitions that are actually used by people. They aren't handed down by some government authority. They percolate up to the dictionary based upon how people actually speak and use the evolving language. There is nothing Orwellian about it. Please see How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary? How Does A Word Get Into The Dictionary? | Dictionary.com 11 hours ago, smac97 said: First off, we've been principally discussing the word "woman." And yet slipped on past citing the Merriam-Webster definition of "woman" in favor of "female" because, I suspect, it has not (yet) been re-defined to kowtow to the radical idealogues with Orwellian tendencies. Actually, the definition of the word "woman" uses the word "female," so I looked up "female" to know what it means. In any case, you are proving my point. You refuse to accept what people mean by the words they use. Instead you insert your definitions into their phrases, so that they mean something other than what they intended. Doing that is equivocation. You pretend people mean things they didn't imply, and blame them for the silliness that derives from your equivocations. Edited June 29, 2022 by Analytics 1
smac97 Posted July 3, 2022 Posted July 3, 2022 On 6/27/2022 at 10:12 AM, smac97 said: Quote I hear where you are coming from, and it gets back to my original point on this thread. Coming from a Latter-day Saint this attitude is ironic, and maybe a bit hypocritical. Refusing to call somebody she/her when she informs you those are the pronouns she prefers reminds me of people who refuse to use the title "Elder" when referring to a missionary. You can insist that you refer to her as he/him based upon standard dictionary definitions and so forth, and they can insist for similar reasons that the 18-year old kid isn't an "elder." To me, this is exactly the same attitude, which I find to be rude and petty. And yet the Latter-day Saints are not attempting to use demands, insults, the force of law, etc. to compel anyone to use the word "Elder." Quite a difference, that. Thanks, -Smac Another example of the "preferred pronouns" absurdity: Here a journalist is literally re-writing a statement from the (alleged) victim to reflect the preferred pronouns of the (alleged) victimizer. This is not journalism. It is not civility. It is activism. More here: Quote Once again, journalists subvert the testimony of female victims using “wrong” pronouns in order to coddle their attacker. For a long time now, Warner Brothers has been wrestling with what is to be done regarding performer Ezra Miller. Cast in the role of “The Flash,” Miller has been at the center of a number of anti-social episodes across the globe over the past couple of years, involving confrontations in Germany, Iceland, and Hawaii, as well as two other cases of possibly grooming younger kids in South Dakota and Massachusetts. Variety, in performing a lengthy investigation into some of these legal scrapes, has located a few of Miller’s alleged victims. The problem rests when the outlet takes a decidedly disturbing approach to detailing the episodes. Miller has declared being non-binary and as a result, in recounting their experiences, Variety takes pains to be sure not to misgender Miller, going so far as to alter the quoted testimony of the women when they deem it necessary. The outlet appears to be deeply worried it might offend a violent abuser. The ridiculousness begins early, as Variety works hard to address Miller in the proper fashion, and the fractured language that follows delivers this ridiculous diction. Miller…became a regular at bars in Iceland’s capital, Reykjavík, where locals came to know and even befriend them. Many recognized Miller from their earliest breakout movies, 2012’s “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” and 2011’s “We Need to Talk About Kevin,” where they played a troubled teen. Resorting to the they/them pronoun while describing encounters with a crowd of people leads to obtuse reporting. When it becomes unclear if you are describing the group or the preferred pronoun reference you have veered from your charged duty of providing clear reporting on a matter. It would be more concise to simply use ‘’Miller’’ to designate the actor. But then, there is a possible conflict in using the gendered term actor, so Variety has painted itself into a rainbow corner. From here, Variety takes the position that this correct pronoun usage is the important way to cover this story. When it comes to interviewing one of the women from Iceland, who had violent encounters with Miller, the corrections to her testimony are glaring and rather offensive. Even as the entertainment outlet affirms the likelihood the woman had no idea about Miller’s pronoun preference, Variety changes her quotes to avoid offending Miller and any potential activist positioning. “I think it’s just fun and games — but then it wasn’t,” she said. “All of a sudden, [they’re] on top of me, choking me, still screaming in my face if I want to fight. My friend who’s filming sees [they’re] obviously not joking and it’s actually serious, so he stops filming, and pushes [them] off me as [they’re] still trying to fight me. Two guy friends of mine are actually holding [Miller] back as [they’re] screaming, ‘This is what you wanted! This is what you wanted!’” (At the time of the interview, it was unclear whether the woman was aware Miller uses they/them pronouns.) This decision by Variety echoes a recent piece I covered concerning the BBC and a report that the British outlet delivered about a sexual assault. When a lesbian woman detailed an encounter with a trans woman who was still physically male and ultimately raped her, the BBC took the steps to correct her quotes where she referred to her attacker as him, and “improperly” used the term “his penis.” These are the inane levels the media is sinking towards where they are fearful of angering a group if they manage to use the wrong pronouns of a violent individual. The willingness to alter the quoted testimony of a victim is journalistically inept, to say nothing of violating the recent narratives we have been spoonfed from this very same journalism complex. Believe all women has now given way to Correct any women who misgender their attacker. ... Now, women claiming to have been assaulted are no longer blindly believed, and their words are no longer taken as unimpeachable gospel if they use incorrect labels on their attacker. Even if that attacker is shown to be a toxic transitioning biological male. We begin to wonder if this rabbit hole has a bottom. Thanks, -Smac 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 3, 2022 Posted July 3, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Another example of the "preferred pronouns" absurdity: Here a journalist is literally re-writing a statement from the (alleged) victim to reflect the preferred pronouns of the (alleged) victimizer. This is not journalism. It is not civility. It is activism. More here: Thanks, -Smac We really are living in the Twilight Zone. Edited July 4, 2022 by Scott Lloyd 1
manol Posted July 4, 2022 Posted July 4, 2022 On 6/28/2022 at 10:07 PM, Tacenda said: When I've d in the schools this past year I flubbed up twice and called a boy a she and a girl a he. They dressed and wore their hair like the opposite gender of their birth, both times they were very forgiving. This was in elementary school. I felt so bad, times are a changin. Yes they are. The upcoming generation draws a HUGE (though imperfect) circle of inclusivity. They are WAY AHEAD of my generation in that respect, and most dramatically EVEN FURTHER AHEAD of where my generation was AT THEIR AGE. Not saying I always agree with the younglings, just trying to step back and observe what's happening as if from a distance. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind." 1
smac97 Posted July 6, 2022 Posted July 6, 2022 On 7/3/2022 at 3:49 PM, smac97 said: Another example of the "preferred pronouns" absurdity: Here a journalist is literally re-writing a statement from the (alleged) victim to reflect the preferred pronouns of the (alleged) victimizer. This is not journalism. It is not civility. It is activism. More here: Thanks, -Smac And another absurdity: ‘Friends’ Creator Apologizes for Misgendering Chandler’s Transgender Dad Quote After pleading mea culpa for the show’s lack of diversity, NBC’s Friends co-creator Marta Kauffman is once again asking for forgiveness, this time for the crime of misgendering one of the sitcom’s most memorable characters — Chandler Bing’s transgender dad, played by Kathleen Turner. In a recent interview on “The Conversation” on the BBC World Service, Marta Kauffman said that it was wrong for the show to refer to the character as “Chandler’s father.” “We kept referring to her as Chandler’s father, even though Chandler’s father was trans. Pronouns were not yet something that I understood. So we didn’t refer to that character as ‘she.’ That was a mistake,” Kauffman said. In Friends, the Kathleen Turner character was variously referred to as “dad,” “Chandler’s dad,” “Charles,” and “Mr. Bing.” So one parent of Chandler's character, the parent who contributed a sperm cell (a "spermatozoon") which then joined with the ovum from Chandler's other parent, was nevertheless not Chandler's "father." Orwell, you mad fool. You saw it coming, dincha? Thanks, -Smac 2
Analytics Posted July 7, 2022 Posted July 7, 2022 21 hours ago, smac97 said: And another absurdity: ‘Friends’ Creator Apologizes for Misgendering Chandler’s Transgender Dad So one parent of Chandler's character, the parent who contributed a sperm cell (a "spermatozoon") which then joined with the ovum from Chandler's other parent, was nevertheless not Chandler's "father." Orwell, you mad fool. You saw it coming, dincha? Thanks, -Smac I'm just surprised that the Ministry of Truth forgot to flush that episode of Friends down the Memory Hole and rewrite it with the pronouns that Big Brother demands we all use and insists we have always used. In any case, I admire your bravery--aren't you terrified that the Thought Police is going to haul you down to Room 101 at the Ministry of Love to re-educate you?
Tacenda Posted July 7, 2022 Posted July 7, 2022 (edited) On 7/3/2022 at 6:47 PM, manol said: Yes they are. The upcoming generation draws a HUGE (though imperfect) circle of inclusivity. They are WAY AHEAD of my generation in that respect, and most dramatically EVEN FURTHER AHEAD of where my generation was AT THEIR AGE. Not saying I always agree with the younglings, just trying to step back and observe what's happening as if from a distance. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind." FYI, my post didn't portray that I mean't to say substituted (sub'd) in schools. And the youth are astounding in my many days of interacting with them through the years, about 16. I have hope for our future for sure. I have hope that wars will lessen, and that love will prevail. Edited July 7, 2022 by Tacenda
smac97 Posted July 7, 2022 Posted July 7, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm just surprised that the Ministry of Truth forgot to flush that episode of Friends down the Memory Hole and rewrite it with the pronouns that Big Brother demands we all use and insists we have always used. And I'm surprised at your ironic sneering at Orwelllian behaviors in today's society. It almost comes across as gaslighting. I understand the reticence to, as some put it, "say the quiet part out loud." Let's review: 1. I initially provided a number of links to news items about various instances where individuals have been punished for speaking, nor not speaking, certain things. One of these was about a law in California that purportedly "allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun." I also addressed this law in further detail here, including that a California Court of Appeals had struck this law because it was unconstitutional, because "forcing employees to refer to patients by their preferred pronouns and names would be a violation of their freedom of speech and ideology." 2. Regarding "preferred pronouns," you subsequently suggested that refusal to use ideosyncratic ones, neologisms, etc., is "rude and petty," and that Latter-day Saints are "hypocritical" about this sort of thing. 3. In response, I noted that "Latter-day Saints are not attempting to use demands, insults, the force of law, etc. to compel anyone to use the word 'Elder.'" 4. In response, you argued in favor of the California law referenced above. That is, the one that even the California Court of Appeals could not uphold due to its incompatibility with the Constitution. You again reiterated a concern about "rude, insulting, and cruel" behavior (namely, resisting being compelled to use ideosyncratic and neologistic "preferred pronouns"). 5. I then provide a few examples of what seems to be a burgeoning tolerance for (and even advocacy of and demand for) compelled speech: Zoey Tur physically assaulting Ben Shapiro and threatening to send him "home in an ambulance" because of his (Shapiro's) comments. He (Tur) did this right in front of a bunch of witnesses. He did this knowing the discussion was ben recorded. And he subsequently got away with it. A video compilation of various trans persons screaming and threatening people who had failed to use "preferred pronouns." A doctor in the UK who was fired for not using transgender pronouns. A law in Scotland that may make non-use of preferred pronouns a hate crime. A similar law in Canada. A similar law in Norway. A similar law in New York. A similar law in Virginia (a county school district policy). And, of course, the law in California. Regarding the California law, I specifically observed: "I find it noteworthy that nowhere in your summary of California's effort to coerce speech do you actually, you know, say that you were or are opposed to it." 6. You then arrgued that the foregoing examples of government coercing and/or punishing speech are not doing that. And in response to the school district policy in Virginia, you tried to characterize its effort to compel speech as "technically" being about treating students with "with dignity and respect, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, transgender status, or gender identity/expression" (in other words . . . compelled use of preferred pronouns and such). 7. I responded with an observation about the Virginia policy still being a matter of compelled speech. 8. You later made a comment that "'Free speech' isn't carte blanche to take a job as a teacher, and then refuse to do your job because you don't want to talk the way that teachers are required to talk." 9. I then tried to get down to brass tacks a bit: Quote This video makes some good points about "preferred pronouns," particularly the guy at the 1:56 mark: Quote Host: Andrew, there you are. It's a matter of courtesy this, and sensitivity, isn't it? Andrew: Courtesy's all very well, and you're describing encouraging people to use certain words. My problem is when words are policed. When language becomes policed. That is my problem. Those sorts of things, 'humankind' or 'mankind,' I mean, those are sort of interchangeable now, they're synonymous anyway. We're talking about when people actively - and it's a minority of activists, it really is a minority - seek to have people disciplined, or sacked, because they refuse to use language that they they are imposing. That's not the evolution of language, that's the imposition of language, and I think that's problematic. Roger, I genuinely think that people like you are totally okay with this sort of thing. That you are okay with, and even approve and endorse and advocate for, compelled speech. Your side of the debate is pushing for governments, employers, etc. to use intimidation tactics (shouting/screaming), threats of actual violence (Zoey Tur), threats to employment, even fines and imprisonment, to coerce people into saying things they A) do not want to say and B) do not believe to be true or factually correct. You use commentary about "rudeness" as a pretext to justify these things. You use false equivancies to minimize and equivocate and distract. You falsely suggest that Latter-day Saints are using comparable means of imposing compelled speech. You try to characterize examples of the foregoing behaviors as aberrations and one-offs. Meanwhile, AFAICS, nowhere have you repudiated or disagreed with any of the above-referenced tactics/behaviors. Instead, it sure seems like you tacitly, and sometimes even expressly, support these tactics, and that you endorse the overall idea of compelled speech. Now, I sure hope I am wrong about this. I hope my surmise and generalized perception of your perspective is flat wrong, and that you are opposed to compelled speech. I hope you do not want members of society to be able to use the force of law to coerce other members of society to say things they do not want to say and do not believe to be true/factual. 10. You responded, quite forcefully, here. The money quote: Quote Quote Now, I sure hope I am wrong about this. I hope my surmise and generalized perception of your perspective is flat wrong, and that you are opposed to compelled speech. I object to how you are equivocating on the term "compelled speech." In general, people have the right to be as rude as they want. For example, you may be as rude to me as you want. Go for it. I can handle it. But I do think compelling people to use polite speech in certain circumstances is appropriate. People should be compelled to speak the truth when they testify under oath. People should be compelled to be respectful to judges in courtroom settings. People should be compelled to leave their politics, impoliteness, and religious beliefs at home when they accept jobs as teachers or staffers at nursing homes. Your implied position that free-speech has no bounds is fundamentally unserious. This is where you more or less "said the quiet part out loud." This discussion has been about points I am making about, inter alia, governmentally-compelled speech pertaining to "preferred pronouns." It was in that context that you said "I do think compelling people to use polite speech in certain circumstances is appropriate." You then cited some examples (speaking under oath, speaking/behaving in court, and . . . this: "People should be compelled to leave their politics, impoliteness, and religious beliefs at home when they accept jobs as teachers or staffers at nursing homes." Yeah, that really starts to look like advocacy of compelled speech. 11. I responded: Quote Quote But I do think compelling people to use polite speech in certain circumstances is appropriate. Yep. I was right. Compelled speech. That is where you are going. You are on board with the government using coercive threats of fines and imprisonment in order to compel private citizens to say things they do not want to say, and/or which they do not believe to be factually true or accurate. Now that you have admitted, albeit through gritted teeth, that you are advocating for compelled speech (confirming my surmises/suspicions), we can take a look at the law. I am happy to say that the laws does not agree with you, and that people like me remain largely protected from the coercive predelictions of people like you (that is, people who are advocating for compelled speech relative to "preferred pronouns"). You're reasoning seems to be essentially that the government can and should use threats of fine and imprisonment to coerce people into using "preferred pronouns" because . . . that would be - in your view "polite." 12. You responded: Quote Quote Yep. I was right. Compelled speech. That is where you are going. You are on board with the government using coercive threats of fines and imprisonment in order to compel private citizens to say things they do not want to say, and/or which they do not believe to be factually true or accurate. You've got to be kidding me. I said "people should be compelled to speak the truth when they testify under oath," and you interpret this as me saying people should be compelled to say "what they do not believe to be factually true or accurate." ... Quote ...and that people like me remain largely protected from the coercive predelictions of people like you (that is, people who are advocating for compelled speech relative to "preferred pronouns"). I didn't say that. I said the opposite. I said, "you may be as rude to me as you want. Go for it. I can handle it." And that's about where things ended up. And likely where things will stay. Based on what you have said, and not said, I surmise that you are in favor of laws that punish the non-use of "preferred pronouns." If so, you are not alone. Several jurisdictions have tried to do this, and outside the U.S. (and away from all those annoying "Free Speech" considerations), such laws appear to be both sticking around and multiplying. I am open to correction. But I'm not exactly holding my breath, either. 7 hours ago, Analytics said: In any case, I admire your bravery--aren't you terrified that the Thought Police is going to haul you down to Room 101 at the Ministry of Love to re-educate you? I wasn't claiming bravery. But from an Orwellian point of view, even a coward who "identifies" as brave is brave, right? Or we can simply re-define "brave" to include a definition of "lacking courage; contemptibly timid." I bet Merriam-Webster would be more than happy to oblige. And given your publicly-declared devotion to the "In the interests of diversity and inclusion I am in favor of laws that fine and punish people who refuse to say the words I want them to say" school of reasoning, I am again surprised at you ironically sneering at the Thought Police, Room 101, Ministry of Love, re-education, etc. Anyway, my comments were made not based on "bravery," but because I repose confidence in the rule of law, which presently protects people like me from people who seem to view Orwell's 1984 as a how-to manual. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 8, 2022 by smac97 3
smac97 Posted July 7, 2022 Posted July 7, 2022 On 6/28/2022 at 3:26 PM, Calm said: Teachers have been dealing with nicknames for at least as long as I have been alive. Not one teacher refused to call me Cris instead of Cristine, my official name. I had any number of teachers who chose to call me "Mr. Macdonald" instead of "Spencer." More commonly, though, I was called "Spencer." I don't recall any of them insisting that they call me by my first name as it appeared on school records (Reuel - "Spencer" is my middle name). Thanks, -Smac
Stargazer Posted July 8, 2022 Posted July 8, 2022 6 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm just surprised that the Ministry of Truth forgot to flush that episode of Friends down the Memory Hole and rewrite it with the pronouns that Big Brother demands we all use and insists we have always used. In any case, I admire your bravery--aren't you terrified that the Thought Police is going to haul you down to Room 101 at the Ministry of Love to re-educate you? Heh heh! There's actually a British comedy TV show called "Room 101" where the invited celebrity guests (always three) bring up a pet peeve that they ask the host to consign to Room 101. The host assigns one of the peeves according to his own lights. My wife likes to watch it, and I sometimes join her, since it's sometimes funny. Here's a full episode from season 7. Note that the humour is a bit British, so... Room 101, Jimmy Carr, Steven Moffat and Rochelle Humes. Series 7, Episode 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 8, 2022 Posted July 8, 2022 (edited) 17 hours ago, smac97 said: I had any number of teachers who chose to call me "Mr. Macdonald" instead of "Spencer." More commonly, though, I was called "Spencer." I don't recall any of them insisting that they call me by my first name as it appeared on school records (Reuel - "Spencer" is my middle name). Thanks, -Smac Remarkably, you and I have the same rather uncommon first name. Furthermore, we are alike in that neither of us uses that name ordinarily (Scott is my middle name as Spencer is your middle name). As you are no doubt aware, Reuel is a Bible name; it was an alternate name for Jethro, Moses’s father-in-law. I’m afraid my parents misspelled it, however. They dropped an e from my name, Ruel. Another factoid: The Old Testament name Reuel means the same thing in Hebrew that the New Testament name Theophilus means in Greek. They both mean “friend of God.” I quite like that. Afterthought: In more formal settings, do you ever use your first initial, as in R. Spencer McDonald? Throughout my 33-year Church News career, I used as my by-line R. Scott Lloyd. I did this primarily out of deference to the wishes of my saintly mother, who thought it looked distinguished. Edited July 8, 2022 by Scott Lloyd 1
Analytics Posted July 8, 2022 Posted July 8, 2022 17 hours ago, smac97 said: And I'm surprised at your ironic sneering at Orwelllian behaviors in today's society. There is nothing; absolutely nothing, "Orwellian" about the creator of a television show saying that she regrets how she portrayed a character in a TV show 25 years ago. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: Let's review: 1. I initially provided a number of links to news items about various instances where individuals have been punished for speaking, nor not speaking, certain things. One of these was about a law in California that purportedly "allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun." I also addressed this law in further detail here, including that a California Court of Appeals had struck this law because it was unconstitutional, because "forcing employees to refer to patients by their preferred pronouns and names would be a violation of their freedom of speech and ideology." This one is your best example, and the way you summarize it is misleading, to the point of dishonesty. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: 2. Regarding "preferred pronouns," you subsequently suggested that refusal to use ideosyncratic ones, neologisms, etc., is "rude and petty," and that Latter-day Saints are "hypocritical" about this sort of thing. No, I suggested that your attitude about this is ironic. I never generalized about Latter-day Saints in general, and I would like to think most of them don't share your hypocrisy on this point. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: 3. In response, I noted that "Latter-day Saints are not attempting to use demands, insults, the force of law, etc. to compel anyone to use the word 'Elder.'" 4. In response, you argued in favor of the California law referenced above. That is, the one that even the California Court of Appeals could not uphold due to its incompatibility with the Constitution. You again reiterated a concern about "rude, insulting, and cruel" behavior (namely, resisting being compelled to use ideosyncratic and neologistic "preferred pronouns"). I didn't argue in favor of that law. Rather, I clarified what the California law actually was. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: 5. I then provide a few examples of what seems to be a burgeoning tolerance for (and even advocacy of and demand for) compelled speech: Zoey Tur physically assaulting Ben Shapiro and threatening to send him "home in an ambulance" because of his (Shapiro's) comments. He (Tur) did this right in front of a bunch of witnesses. He did this knowing the discussion was ben recorded. And he subsequently got away with it. Yes, Shapiro was rude and baited this person, and unfortunately she fell for it. So what? 17 hours ago, smac97 said: A doctor in the UK who was fired for not using transgender pronouns. There isn't anything wrong about an employer requiring their employees to be polite to their customers. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: A law in Scotland that may make non-use of preferred pronouns a hate crime. Two points. 1- Saying something that is "hateful" isn't a hate crime. As an attorney, I'm shocked you don't know this. "A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime)[1] is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership (or perceived membership) of a certain social group or racial demographic." 2- There isn't a law that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime. This is a lie that is being spread by right-wing media, and you somehow fell for it, and are now spreading it. There is not a law in Scotland that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: A similar law in Canada. There isn't a law that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime. This is a lie that is being spread by right-wing media, and you somehow fell for it, and are now spreading it. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: A similar law in Norway. There isn't a law that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime. This is a lie that is being spread by right-wing media, and you somehow fell for it, and are now spreading it. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: A similar law in New York. There isn't a law that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime. This is a lie that is being spread by right-wing media, and you somehow fell for it, and are now spreading it. These places may have similar laws, but none of them have a law that "make non-use of preferred pronouns" a crime. Why are you spreading these lies? 17 hours ago, smac97 said: A similar law in Virginia (a county school district policy). A Virginia school district does have rules for how teachers will interact with students while in the classroom. As an employer, making such rules are within their purview. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: And, of course, the law in California. Regarding the California law, I specifically observed: "I find it noteworthy that nowhere in your summary of California's effort to coerce speech do you actually, you know, say that you were or are opposed to it." I am opposed to you misrepresenting what that law actually was. Otherwise, I don't really care about a defunct law in California enough to have a position on it. In general, I believe that nursing homes in California should have the right to fire people who are deliberately and repeatedly rude to the specific residents in their facilities. 17 hours ago, smac97 said: And given your publicly-declared devotion to the "In the interests of diversity and inclusion I am in favor of laws that fine and punish people who refuse to say the words I want them to say" school of reasoning... That is a lie. Please don't lie about me, especially after doxing me (which is against the board's rules, btw). 2
smac97 Posted July 8, 2022 Posted July 8, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote And I'm surprised at your ironic sneering at Orwelllian behaviors in today's society. There is nothing; absolutely nothing, "Orwellian" about the creator of a television show saying that she regrets how she portrayed a character in a TV show 25 years ago. It is Orwellian to apologize for referencing a character's biologically male parent as "father." 3 hours ago, Analytics said: I didn't argue in favor of that law. Rather, I clarified what the California law actually was. I dunno. You sure seemed irritated that it was struck down. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Yes, Shapiro was rude and baited this person, and unfortunately she fell for it. So what? Some folks are indifferent to the use of violence in response to speech. They look at an instance of a "trans" person resorting to both threatened and actual violence in response to "misgendering," and . . . they don't care. Some folks seem to be normalizing and justifying violence as a legitimate response to speech. That's what. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote A law in Scotland that may make non-use of preferred pronouns a hate crime. Two points. 1- Saying something that is "hateful" isn't a hate crime. As an attorney, I'm shocked you don't know this. "A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime)[1] is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership (or perceived membership) of a certain social group or racial demographic." You are only proving my point. The statute in Scotland was originally broad and vague enough to create concern about "misgendering" and/or non-use of "preferred pronouns" as a hate crime. Even advocates of the proposed statute saw this as a "feature," not a "bug." See here: Quote But then, from the more conservative sections, arose a new “concern” claiming that the bill imposed on freedom of speech and expression. “I am free to believe what I want to believe, and express those beliefs. The government can’t throw me into jail for that”. So, the government ensured that you could think and say whatever you wanted in the privacy of your own home. But that wasn’t all. Another problem was raised. The bill had a strong focus on intent and likelihood of causing harm. But that was too vague. Who determined what the actual intent was? Who decides what the likelihood of horrendous actions was? So again, the government changed the remit of the bill, the likelihood test now a judgement of is a “reasonable person” would think about the intent and effects. ... Who decides who a “reasonable person” is? Reasonable to the perpetrator of hate? To the already privileged, who are causing harm to others for no reason? And more importantly what has reason got to do with anything? Hate crime isn’t accidentally saying something insensitive. No one is going to file a police report if you accidentally misgender someone, or unintentionally say something insensitive. They will correct you, ask you to not do that again, you apologise, learn your lesson, listen, and move on. That is reasonable. That is acceptable. But a hate crime is based on a belief that is irrational. It does not stand to reason to address someone using a racial slur. It does not stand to reason to bully someone simply because they have a disability. Yet, the victim - who is absolutely correct in calling out such hatred and protecting themselves, protecting others within their community - is held to a higher standard. That isn’t fair. That isn’t justice. No one but the individual facing the brunt of hate can fully decide what is reasonable and what is not. It seems unreasonable for a third party who can't truly understand these shared experiences to be so integrally involved. And even if they have to be for the sake of the law, such a diluted term such as a "reasonable person" leaves far too much room for interpretation. And here (apparently an anecdote about an incident in Scotland) : Quote For instance, it is very possible (and it has indeed happened) that a disabled person (autistic in one well publicised case) could misgender a transgender person because their disability prevents them from reading social cues (gender presentation) while still being able to recognise the person’s sex. In this case, an autistic young man was convicted and had to pay a fine for the offence of misgendering a police officer. We believe this is a case of a poorly managed conflict of rights where the perceived offence towards one protected characteristic (transgender) was deemed more “harmful” than convicting a disabled young man for the offence of perceiving a transgender person’s sex rather than their gender identity. The concern here is not about Free Speech, but about punishing an autistic person for "misgendering." A 2020 news item about it: Quote Abusive comments shouted by a teenager left a transgender police community support officer 'upset and embarrassed' while he was on duty. PCSO Connor Freel was on patrol in a busy town centre when the remarks were aired. Declan Armstrong, 19, was given a curfew requirement and ordered to pay £590 at Mold Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday after he was found guilty of making the comments following an earlier trial. Rhian Jackson, prosecuting, said Mr Freel had been in full uniform on foot patrol in Mold, North Wales, on October 16 last year when he passed Armstrong, who was with friend Chelsea Bassett, Wales Online reports. The court was told: “Declan then shouted very loudly: ‘Is it a boy or is it a girl?’.” She said when Mr Freel looked over at Armstrong he made the comment loudly again. Ms Jackson said: “Due to his transgender when Connor heard Declan say what he said it left him feeling upset and embarrassed.” ... Ms Jackson said: “To have something shouted at him that had such personal connotations whilst he was on his own in the middle of a public place that was rather busy due to market day footfall did leave him vulnerable, distressed, and embarrassed.” She said it had left him reluctant to undertake foot patrols on his own. Armstrong, of Victory Court, Mold, was convicted of a public order offence following a trial earlier this month but the court heard he still denied making the comments. Gary Harvey, defending, said: “He doesn’t hold any prejudice against anyone in society.” The court heard Armstrong, who acts as a carer for a man he considers his father, had been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome and suffered from anxiety and depression. Sentencing, district judge Roger Lowe said the aggravating features of the case were that Mr Freel was performing a public service as a PCSO and the incident was in a busy town centre where other people could hear what was said. He said the sentence had been uplifted from a low level to a medium-level community order because of its transphobic nature. Armstrong was ordered to pay £200 compensation to Mr Freel, a £90 victim surcharge, and £300 contribution to the prosecution costs. "Misgendering" as "a public order offence." Being "convicted of" such an offence is usually indicative of it (the offence) being . . . criminal. This story was unique in that an autistic person was convicted of this crime. In other words, a person of normal cognitive abilities would definitely be at risk for "misgendering." 3 hours ago, Analytics said: 2- There isn't a law that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime. This is a lie that is being spread by right-wing media, and you somehow fell for it, and are now spreading it. See above. Was or was not Declan Armstrong convicted of a crime? And was or was not that crime comprised of "misgendering" another person? I'm genuinely curious how you will respond to these questions. That folks opposed to people like you have managed to stave off such a serious encroachment to Free Speech doesn't negate the attempt at the encroachment, which apparently remains to some extent due to inherent (likely deliberately so) vagueness in the law. See, e.g., here: Hate Crime Bill: chill factor remains despite improvements Quote Transgender identity has been the subject of extensive and emotional public discussion. It is a highly contentious and deeply sensitive area of debate. This debate, and free discussion and criticism of views, is vital as society wrestles with these ideas. Open and honest debate on the very essence of the human person should not be stifled, yet this legislation risks creating a chilling effect in relation to such matters. I also remain deeply concerned that the Bill tolerates compelled speech by potentially criminalising people who ‘misgender’ i.e. use a third person pronoun based on biological sex. Of course, these are delicate and sensitive issues and there is a need for compassion, respect and understanding. However, this should not automatically exclude the right to free expression nor attract the attention of the criminal law. In sum, the Bill is in much better shape thanks to the intervention of many stakeholders, including faith groups and all those individuals who contacted their MSPs. The right to free speech has, to some extent, been salvaged. Concerns do, however, remain. The freedom of expression provision is weak and risks chilling debate on important cultural and social issues, and concerns have also been expressed regarding the lack of a dwelling defence and the failure to adequately address the concerns of women’s groups. (Emphases added.) And here: Why is Scotland's Hate Crime Bill so controversial? Quote What is hate crime? A hate crime is a criminal offence that is based on prejudice against a specific group of people - for example attacking someone because of their religion or the colour of their skin. Scotland already has various laws in place that offer additional protection to people from crimes based on their disability, race, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. It means that crimes can be treated more seriously by the courts if the offender has shown "malice and ill-will" towards the victim based on their membership - or association with - one of the protected groups. ... What does the Scottish government want to do? The government asked a senior judge, Lord Bracadale, to examine all of the country's existing hate crime legislation to make sure it was still fit for purpose in the 21st Century. It then introduced the Hate Crime and Public Order bill to the Scottish Parliament in response to his recommendations. The bill adds hate crime based on a person's age to the list of protected groups, with hatred based on someone's sex potentially to be added in the future. It aims to simplify and clarify the law by bringing together the various existing hate crime laws into a single piece of legislation. And it creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" against the protected groups - which is defined as "behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, or communicating threatening or abusive material to another person". The bill originally said that this could be "with the intention" of stirring up hatred against someone from a protected group, or "where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group". However, the Scottish government has now said that the bill will be amended to ensure that only people who intended to stir up hatred will be prosecuted. ... Why are some people not happy? Serious concerns have been raised about the potential impact on freedom of speech, with opponents arguing that the full implications of the proposed law have not been thought through. While supporting the principle of protecting people from prejudice, they argue that the definition of "stirring up hatred" is too vague and open to interpretation. There have been suggestions, for example, that the bill could lead to author JK Rowling facing a seven-year prison sentence for expressing her concerns about the impact of trans rights on women. And opponents say comedians could potentially be prosecuted for making a joke about a "Scotsman, and Englishman and an Irishman" walking into a bar. There have also been claims from the Catholic Church that the new law could make it illegal for people to oppose same-sex marriage or increased transgender rights on religious grounds. And there were even concerns that proposed laws on possessing "inflammatory material" could potentially lead to libraries and bookshops being prosecuted for stocking books that are deemed to be offensive. This section of the bill would have covered people who "have in their possession threatening, abusive or insulting material with a view to communicating the material to another person". However, the government has bowed to pressure and agreed to remove this section entirely. And here: Scottish gov’t expands definition of ‘hate crime’ with controversial law ‘policing what people think or feel’ Quote By a vote of 82 to 32, Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) have passed into law the highly divisive so-called Hate Crime Bill, which introduced a new crime of “stirring up hatred.” At the same time, the bill rescinds an ancient law criminalizing blasphemy, which hadn’t been used in a prosecution for over 175 years. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill was passed on Thursday at Holyrood after a five-hour debate over the legislation, including amendments, was held the previous day. Under the new legislation, current “hate crime” laws will be extended to include new social categories of people identified as “vulnerable groups.” Until now, hate crime laws, defined as “behaviour which is both criminal and based on prejudice” in Scottish law, have covered individuals on the basis of “disability, race (and related characteristics), religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity.” The update in law extends this cover to “age … and allows sex to be added at a later date” as well as introducing the offense of “stirring up hatred.” The Hate Crime Bill was first proposed following an independent review by senior judge Lord Bracadale into the country’s hate crime laws. Bracadale’s review prompted the Scottish government to consolidate existing legislation into one law, but soon received fierce backlash over the vagueness of the language, especially with the addition of “stirring up hatred.” Writers, journalists, religious leaders, and official bodies like the Police Federation of Scotland (SPF) and the Law Society of Scotland criticized the bill for its low threshold for prosecution and perceived contravention of freedom of speech. The SPF said the bill will drastically affect the relationship between the public and officers, who will essentially be “policing what people think or feel.” The Scottish Conservatives, accompanied by a few others, were the only MSPs to vote down the bill in parliament, citing freedom of expression concerns. Justice spokesman for the party, Liam Kerr, said: “We agree that hate crime should be rooted out but the SNP [Scottish National Party, currently in power] should not have allowed a fundamental right to be trampled on in the process.” Kerr later criticized the bill as being filled with “inherent ambiguity” and “riddled with glaring flaws,” including a lack of exemption for the freedom to express beliefs considered hateful in private conversations within the home. Last year, the Scottish Catholic Bishops’ Conference released a statement on the impact that could be wrought by enshrining the new hate crime bill. They raised concerns about the interpretation of “stirring up hatred” and how it might be applied in real terms. The provisions of the “stirring up hatred” offense are twofold yet imprecise. First, the behavior or communication must be threatening, abusive or, in the case of race, insulting. Second, either the actor must “intend” to stir up “hatred” against a protected group, or there is a “likelihood” that his or her behavior or communication will stir up “hatred” against a protected group. The bishops objected that the definition of “hatred” is so unclear it is open to “a wide interpretation,” thus the “proposed threshold for an offence under the stirring-up provisions might be considered disproportionately low.” At the time there was a second arm of the proposed legislation that troubled the bishops, “possession of inflammatory material,” which the bishops noted could have rendered such literature as “the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other texts such as Bishops’ Conference of Scotland submissions to government consultations as being inflammatory under the new provision.” Following complaints of stifling religious freedom from the Catholic bishops and other faith leaders, “possession of inflammatory material” was dropped from the bill. Despite amendments to attenuate the effect on freedom of expression and religion, Anthony Horan, director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office, who criticized the bill for criminalizing disagreeeent with transgender ideology, said that his “concerns remain.” Horan explained: “There is no assurance that stating there are only two sexes, or that sex is immutable will not be criminalised. Nor is there an assurance that discussing or criticising marriage in relation to the parties to the marriage will not be criminalised. At the very least what has been created is a chilling effect; an environment where nobody will talk openly about these things for fear of prosecution, irrespective of how well founded those fears may be.” Noting the contentious nature of transgenderism, Horan raised further concern over the possibility of “compelled speech by potentially criminalising people who ‘misgender’ i.e. use a third person pronoun based on biological sex,” which he said, “the Bill tolerates.” “Of course, these are delicate and sensitive issues and there is a need for compassion, respect and understanding. However, this should not automatically exclude the right to free expression nor attract the attention of the criminal law,” he said. Humza Yousaf, the Justice Secretary who led the bill through parliament, assured critics that people who believe “sex is immutable … or those that proselytise that same-sex relationships are sinful, none of these people would fall foul of the stirring up of hatred offence for solely stating their belief – even if they did so in a robust manner.” He continued, adding that “solely stating any belief, which I accept may be offensive to some, is not breaching the criminal threshold.” Such behavior will only become a criminal offense if it is “threatening or abusive by a reasonable person and it was intended to stir up hatred” against an individual in one of the groups protected by the law. Whilst admitting the bill is in “much better shape” following the petitions and protestations of the bishops and private citizens, Horan said that “concerns do, however, remain. The freedom of expression provision is weak and risks chilling debate on important cultural and social issues, and concerns have also been expressed regarding the lack of a dwelling defence and the failure to adequately address the concerns of women’s groups.” (Emphases added.) Humza Yousaf's assurances notwithstanding, the foregoing concerns are pretty legitimate. I am not fan of incivility. I am a very big fan of Free Speech. I am not a fan of threats, either. I do not believe threats are, or should be, construed as "protected" speech. However, I think there is a real risk of "mission creep," of the temptation by folks on your side of the debate to encourage the passage of vague and broadly-worded laws that seem facially reasonable, but which are broad enough to punish ideological opponents for the content of their speech, and even to punish them for not submitting to compelled speech (such as preferred pronouns). 3 hours ago, Analytics said: There is not a law in Scotland that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime. Plenty of people in Scotland would seem to disagree with you, including Declan Armstrong and his family. Again, if an autistic person in Scotland can be convicted of a crime for "misgendering" someone, then surely a person of normal cognitive capacity can also be convicted on that basis. As John Philpot Curran so aptly put it: "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance." Just so. People who value free speech must be consistently vigilant against efforts to squelch it, which necessarily includes opposing the sort of legislatively-imposed compelled speech that some are trying to enact (and, in some places, succeeding). 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote A similar law in Canada. There isn't a law that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime. This is a lie that is being spread by right-wing media, and you somehow fell for it, and are now spreading it. Whom should I believe, you or my lying eyes? Misgendering Is a Human Rights Violation, Canadian Court Rules Quote Deliberate misgendering in the workplace is a human rights violation, according to a ruling from a Canadian court. Last Wednesday, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favor of Jessie Nelson, a restaurant worker who filed a complaint against their former employer, Buono Osteria. Nelson, who is nonbinary and genderfluid, claimed the British Columbia Italian restaurant discriminated against them by intentionally using incorrect pronouns. They alleged that their former employers deliberately referred to them using gendered nicknames such as “sweetheart,” “sweetie,” and “honey.” ... The tribunal ordered Buono Osteria to implement a formal pronoun policy, as well as mandatory diversity and inclusion training for all managers and staff. The restaurant and specific offenders responsible for the behavior will pay Nelson $30,000 in damages, according to the CBC. Nelson’s attorney, Adrienne Smith, celebrated the decision after the ruling was handed down last week. They said the decision showed that “the correct pronouns for transgender people are not optional.” “They’re the minimum of courtesy and respect,” Smith said to Canadian news outlet CityNews. “It’s not an option to respect the pronouns that trans people choose for themselves. It’s a legal requirement to use the pronouns that a trans person uses for themselves and asks to have used in the workplace.” ... The federal equivalent to British Columbia’s Human Rights Act was expanded four years ago to provide greater protection to transgender people, according to the LGBTQ+ news outlet Xtra. In 2017, the Parliament of Canada passed bill C-16, which added protections on the basis of both gender identity and expression in its existing nondiscrimination and hate crimes laws. And here: Quote Jordan Peterson became world-famous in 2016 because he stood up to Canada's human rights law, which made it a crime to "misgender" someone. Since then, Canada has slid even farther into gender totalitarianism. The latest example is a Canadian man who was sent to prison for refusing to adopt his teenage daughter's new masculine pronouns. ... While the father could do nothing to stop the permanent changes wrought on his daughter via hormone treatments, he steadfastly refused to refer to his daughter by masculine pronouns. In today's Canada, under the same "human rights" laws that Peterson opposed, that is a criminal matter. Last week, the Canadian government sent him to prison for "misgendering" his daughter. ... You should read the entire article at The Post Millennial to appreciate the dystopian nightmare taking place north of us. The "crime" here was disobeying a court order. That is, a court order from a government official to a private citizen compelling him to use "preferred pronouns." 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote A similar law in Norway. There isn't a law that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime. This is a lie that is being spread by right-wing media, and you somehow fell for it, and are now spreading it. Again, my lying eyes: Norwegian man sentenced to 21 days conditional imprisonment for calling transwoman old man Quote Original article in Norwegian: https://www.nrk.no/norge/transkvinne-hetsa-_-mann-domd-etter-facebook-kommentarar-1.15782198 Translation by me: Transwoman verbally insulted - man convicted after facebook comment For the first time in Norway a man is convicted after verbally insulting a transwoman. "-I look at this as hate speech" says woman to NRK. [Picture of comment]: Do you really believe that a single human being thinks that you are a woman and not an old (geezer) man with strange fantasies? FACEBOOK-DEBATE: This is one of the comments the man directed to the transwoman. She wants to be anonymous, but is confident in her choice about reporting the man she quarreled with on facebook 24th March this year. "- This signalizes for people that this kind of behavior is not tolerated", she says to NRK. The 52 year old man from the bergen area wrote a series of insulting comments about her gender identity, after while knowing that she had changed her gender. [Picture of 3 comments]: Do you really believe that a single human being thinks that you are a woman and not an old (geezer) man with strange fantasies? That being said, i cant fathom that the authorities still permit you to care and look after children. Perverted man pigs that are permanently LARPing that they are small girls have no real destructive power (i guess). Positively surprised The woman, who is residing in another city than the man is happy that the police and courts took the case when she reported it. "- I was positively surprised over the fact that the police took the case" she says This is probably the first conviction i Norway after the criminal law was tightened in december 2020. The new subsection in paragraph 185 states that it it not permitted to state discriminatory or hateful tings on the basis of someone's gender identity or gender expression. "- There is not much lawful practice on this yet", says police lawyer Camilla Moe to Bergens Tidende (Norwegian newspaper) before the court's ruling was ready. To protect trans people The purpose of the amendment is to protect transgender people and others who have a gender identity or a gender expression that violates the "expectations of the environment", as stated in the preparatory work for the law. This is also the reason why the district court found the man guilty of making hate speech against the trans woman in a comment field on Facebook. The woman said that the worst was when the comments were written. "- He proceeded during the trial, not with the same type of incitement, but with erroneous sex. Wrong pronoun and use the wrong name for me", she says to NRK. [Picture of defence attorney] Attorney Einar Råen will assess whether the case should be appealed to the Gulating Court of Appeal. Declares his innocence The man who has now been convicted admits that he wrote the comments, but that they must be within freedom of speech. The district court is completely disagrees with this and believes that it must react strictly to such statements. "- They violate protected groups of people and which in practice means that those who are exposed to it limit their participation in public debates", the court writes. They sentenced the man to prison on conditions for 21 days and a fine of 15,000 kroner. The man must also pay the court 3,000 kroner in legal costs. Feelings hurt NRK has been in contact with the man's defense attorney, Einar Råen. For example, he will not comment on the verdict or whether they have considered appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal. For the random trans woman, it is a great relief that the district court chose to convict the man for what he wrote. "- Those who know me are mostly decent people. There are very few times this happens. But when someone tries to use this against me to hurt me, then I'm pretty quick to state that I wont tolerate it." she says. Ho-hum. Nothing to see here. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote A similar law in New York. There isn't a law that makes the non-use of preferred pronouns a crime. This is a lie that is being spread by right-wing media, and you somehow fell for it, and are now spreading it. Again, my lying eyes: Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined Quote Employers and landlords who intentionally and consistently ignore using pronouns such as “ze/hir” to refer to transgender workers and tenants who request them — may be subject to fines as high as $250,000. The Commission on Human Rights’ legal guidelines mandate that anyone who providing jobs or housing must use individuals’ preferred gender pronouns. ... The legal enforcement is in line with the city’s guidance on discrimination based on gender identity or expression. “Gender expression may not be distinctively male or female and may not conform to traditional gender-based stereotypes assigned to specific gender identities,” the city advises. The city insisted that accidentally misusing a transgender person’s preferred pronoun is not against the law and would not be subject to a fine. The updated regulations are meant to address “situations in which individuals intentionally and repeatedly target transgender and gender non-conforming people with this type of harassment,” Commission spokesman Seth Hoy told the Post Thursday. “The Commission issued this guidance last year so that employers and individuals understand what the law says and to ensure that every transgender individual in New York City is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve,” Hoy added. Penalties of up to $250,000 can be imposed for violations that are deemed to be the result of malicious intent. See also here: In NYC, you can be fined $250,000 for not using 'preferred gender pronouns' 3 hours ago, Analytics said: These places may have similar laws, but none of them have a law that "make non-use of preferred pronouns" a crime. Again, tell that to Declan Armstrong. Tell that to the fellow in Norway. Civil fines for resisting compelled speech are an incremental step toward actual criminalization. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Why are you spreading these lies? "Lies" about Declan Armstrong, the autistic man convicted of a crime for "misgendering" a police officer? "Lies" about the fellow in Norway, who was convicted, fined and jailed for "misgendering" a person on Facebook? "Lies" about the $250,000 fine imposed by the government in New York for not using "preferred pronouns"? 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote A similar law in Virginia (a county school district policy). A Virginia school district does have rules for how teachers will interact with students while in the classroom. As an employer, making such rules are within their purview. As a government entity, maybe not. Ask yourself this: If a governmental entity passed a regulation that required its employees to refer to Russell M. Nelson as "Our Beloved Prophet," would you be okay with that? If not, why not? If a governmental entity passed a regulation prohibiting its employees from using "preferred pronouns," and to instead only use normative pronouns reflecting the biological sex of the referenced individual, would you be okay with that? I suspect . . . not. And I wouldn't blame you for not being okay with these things. However, I would note the, shall we say, selective and inconsistent applicaton of your reasoning. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote And, of course, the law in California. Regarding the California law, I specifically observed: "I find it noteworthy that nowhere in your summary of California's effort to coerce speech do you actually, you know, say that you were or are opposed to it." I am opposed to you misrepresenting what that law actually was. Uh huh. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Otherwise, I don't really care about a defunct law in California enough to have a position on it. An understandable omission. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote And given your publicly-declared devotion to the "In the interests of diversity and inclusion I am in favor of laws that fine and punish people who refuse to say the words I want them to say" school of reasoning... That is a lie. So you are not in favor of laws that fine and punish people who refuse to say things they don't want to say? AFAF. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Please don't lie about me, Again, are you not in favor of laws that fine and punish people who refuse to say things they don't want to say? If so, I stand corrected and apologize. As it is, though, I surmise that you are in favor of such laws. That is the conclusion I draw from reading your comments. It remains a surmise only because you persist in being coy about this topic. By way of anecdote: I am currently involved in a lawsuit which is A) based on a dispute about real property located in Utah, B) between parties who are all residents of the State of Utah, and C) which dispute is governed by a state statute (pertaining to the recording of documents in a county recorder's office). The opposing attorney "removed" (transferred) the case to federal court. I filed a motion to "remand" it (have it transferred back) to state court. The federal judge granted my motion, stating that the federal court had no jurisdiction over the dispute. After the case had been transferred back to state court, the opposing attorney filed a "Motion to Dismiss" arguing that the state court lacks jurisdiction. The opposing attorney has ever since noticeably coy and evasive about jurisdiction. He has refused to say whether he things the federal court was wrong (about its lack of jurisdiction). He has also refused to address the absence of any basis for federal jurisdiction (a federal statute or "question," or complete diversity of citizenship of the parties). He has consistently refused to explain where he thinks jurisdiction lies. So both I and the judge have been left to "surmise" his position, which is . . . that jurisdiction does not exist anywhere, and that his clients (LLCs organized under the laws of the State of Utah, but whose sole member is a Native American tribe) are immune from the authority of both state and federal courts. It's an absurd and untenable position, which is why I think he has been so pervasively coy about it. The real property is not on an Indian reservation, and the tribe is not a party to the lawsuit. But the lawyer's implicit argument is, nevertheless, that neither the state nor the federal courts have any jurisdictional authority over the dispute, and that my client has no legal right to seek enforcement of the state statute against the LLCs. Your comments in this thread have been reminding me of this attorney. You dance around and play coy, but you've said enough to justify, in my view, a reasonable inference that you are in favor of the government enacting laws compelling governmental employees and/or private citizens to use "preferred pronouns," and to impose punishment - adverse effects on employment (up to and including job loss), fines, and perhaps even imprisonment - for failure to use such words. You have, like the above-described attorney, refused to explain or articulate your position on this issue. I find this deliberate and calculated omission . . . telling. Of course, you are not under any obligation to publish your opinion on these things. I'm comfortable with my surmise. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: especially after doxing me (which is against the board's rules, btw). Huh? From 2012: Revisit Of Loomis'S Growth Predictions 10-Years Later Who was it that started that thread about this "Loomis" fellow? Let's take a look: Quote Ten years ago, a commonly held view amongst apologists was that Rodney Stark was correct in his view that the church would continue to grow exponentially for the next 100 years, and possibly reach 280,000,000 members by 2080. I commented on ZLMB that if you took a closer look at the growth rates, the church's growth rate was obviously slowing down and that Rodney Stark's assertion that it would grow exponentially for several decades was highly unlikely. An apologist balked at my views, with a logical argument that amounted to an appeal to Stark as a noted authority. I ended up writing a paper about church growth that I later presented at a meeting for the Association for the Sociology of Religion. One of the ZLMB threads on the topic is archived here: http://pacumenispage...ng#.T3hriHiLH0c You can read the paper itself here: http://www.lds4u.com/growth2/Index.htm I marked on my calendar to review the predictions after 10 years data have come in, and here we are. 10 years ago, I predicted that the Dec 2011 statistical report would say there were 14,826,382 members. This compares to the 14,441,346 that was actually reported. However, what I was more interested in was the rate of growth. I predicted that the rate of growth for 2011 would be 0.02168. The actual rate of growth was 0.02169.* So far, not too bad. Edited April 1, 2012 by Analytics "By Analytics." And the second link provided by this "Analytics" fellow takes us to an article of which he (Analytics) claims authorship: Quote Mormon Church Growth Roger Loomis Presented at The Association for the Sociology of Religion August 15-17, 2002 Chicago, IL How is stating your name which you yourself published to the world under your online "Analytics" pseudonym "doxing?" "Doxing" entails "search{ing} for and publish{ing} private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet, typically with malicious intent." I didn't "search" for your name. You provided it to us ten years ago. I didn't "publish" your "private or identifying information" until long after you yourself had done so. And I did not have "malicious intent" because, again, you yourself linked your IRL name to your online handle. In the future I will, in deference to your sensibilities, refrain from using your IRL name (given the above post, it had not occurred to my that you would find this problematic). But I reject the accusation that I "doxxed" you. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 8, 2022 by smac97 4
mrmarklin Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 On 6/15/2022 at 8:31 PM, provoman said: For starters, I believe people can be "good" without having a religion or even a belief in a Deity. I watched "What is a Woman" the other night, it was interesting had many antagonist moments, some important informative information if that information is true. The main person talked to different professionals regarding gender and sex. A main point from the trans gender affirming professionals was that "gender" is a social construct. As I thought about it, absent an absolute authority, gender, biological sex label of male/female, all labels are social constructs. So I find myself thinking "live and let live, just stay away from mine". And I kind of think, why have we humans spent so many centuries gendering objects? Also, if a person like dresses, let them wear a dress. Since when is there any reason or social benefit to gendering clothes? On the other hand, there is the verse about cunning craftiness, so it would seem we shouldn't just say "you are correct" and walk away, but should take a stand. Without reading the entire thread I can say that members of the LDS Church are fortunate to have a prophet that can tell us the truth about how things are. If we follow him, we can’t go far wrong. When he speaks for God, he is the ultimate authority. 1
Analytics Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: It is Orwellian to apologize for referencing a character's biologically male parent as "father." That isn't Orwellian and that isn't what happened. On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: I dunno. You sure seemed irritated that it was struck down. You have a fascinating imagination. On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: You are only proving my point. The statute in Scotland was originally broad and vague enough to create concern about "misgendering" and/or non-use of "preferred pronouns" as a hate crime. Even advocates of the proposed statute saw this as a "feature," not a "bug." See here: And here (apparently an anecdote about an incident in Scotland) : The concern here is not about Free Speech, but about punishing an autistic person for "misgendering." A 2020 news item about it: "Misgendering" as "a public order offence." Being "convicted of" such an offence is usually indicative of it (the offence) being . . . criminal. This story was unique in that an autistic person was convicted of this crime. In other words, a person of normal cognitive abilities would definitely be at risk for "misgendering." See above. Was or was not Declan Armstrong convicted of a crime? Yes, Declan Armstrong was convicted of a crime. On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: And was or was not that crime comprised of "misgendering" another person? No, that crime was not comprised of "misgendering" another person (why did you put "misgendering" in quotation marks? That word has nothing to do with the crime, the story, or the law. The quotation marks falsely imply the story uses that term). The crime consisted of repeatedly shouting "abusive comments" at a "police community support officer" in a crowded public space. I'm having a really hard time taking you seriously here. First you claim Scotland has a law that makes the "non-use of preferred pronouns a hate crime." To back this up, you refer us to the Declan Armstrong case, but then claim it's isn't about "the non-use of preferred pronouns" but rather "misgendering". Neither the law nor the case is about misgendering or the non-use of preferred pronouns. In fact, Armstrong was convicted 18 months before the hate-crime law was passed. Maybe the police community support officer was a snowflake. Maybe the questions that were repeatedly yelled really weren't abusive. Maybe the judge called a ball a strike. Or maybe the judge is corrupt. Regardless, this story doesn't support your claim; the non-use of preferred pronouns is legal in Scotland. On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: I'm genuinely curious how you will respond to these questions. That folks opposed to people like you... People like me? What are you talking about? On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: However, I think there is a real risk of "mission creep," of the temptation by folks on your side of the debate... I'm simply arguing for honesty about what's going on. I resent you scouring the Internet for things to be offended by, consistently misrepresenting the facts, and then declaring that these supposed villains are on "my side" of some debate. On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: Again, if an autistic person in Scotland can be convicted of a crime for "misgendering" someone, then surely a person of normal cognitive capacity can also be convicted on that basis. Again, nobody in Scotland was convicted of the imaginary crime of "misgendering" somebody. On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: Misgendering Is a Human Rights Violation, Canadian Court Rules Sigh. Here's what really happened. Jessie Nelson was a server at a restaurant, and would prefer to be referred to by non-gendered pronouns (i.e. they/them). The bar manager adamantly refused to accommodate Jessie on this, and went so far as to call Jessie sexist, gendered nicknames like “sweetheart”, “honey”, and “pinky”. Jessie told him, “my name is not pinky or sweetie. If you can’t use my pronouns, at least use my name”. The bar manager refused, and deliberately went out of his way to harass Jessie with those unwanted nicknames. After even more harassment with those sexist nicknames, Jessie said, "Brian, that is not my name. My name is Jessie. Call me by my name." Jessie complained to management and got fired. The Canadian Human Rights Act was originally passed in 1977. In the areas of employment, it makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc. A few years ago, gender identity was added to the list. In general, do you think free speech should give people the right to harass employees and coworkers at work about their race, religion, national origin, etc.? I'm trying to understand if you are opposed to the actual law here, or are merely opposed to your wildly irrelevant straw man. Are you opposed to human rights laws in general, or are you just opposed to these human rights being extended to the class of transgender people? On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: And here: The "crime" here was disobeying a court order. That is, a court order from a government official to a private citizen compelling him to use "preferred pronouns." Sigh. Do you always turn to partisan editorials to understand the nuances of court opinions? The court didn't compel a private citizen to use preferred pronouns in general. In fact, the court didn't compel a private citizen to use preferred pronouns at all. The context of this is an ugly custody battle, and a judge was trying to find a reasonable accommodation that would allow for joint custody. Here is an analogy. A couple with a teenager gets divorced when the husband becomes a bitter exMormon and the wife and teenager are faithful members. The parents try to negotiate joint custody, but every time the teenager returns from staying with the father she is crying because he insists on continually berating the Church and its members (including his exwife and child) whenever he is with her. The teenager is a faithful member who really believes the Church, and a psychologist determines that the Church really is a positive influence in the teenager's life. In such a case, would it be reasonable for a judge to say, "Look. You are totally free to badmouth the Mormon Church when you aren't with your child. But if you'd like joint custody, you can't berate your child's religion when you are together." That's all this case is. The judge didn't order a private citizen to "use preferred pronouns" in general. He just tried to find a reasonable accommodation for custody in an ugly divorce. He didn't require the father to say anything. Maybe the judge was as wise as Solomon. Or maybe he was a corrupt fool. I don't know. Regardless, this editorial doesn't support your assertion that there is a law in Canada that makes "the non-use of preferred pronouns" a crime. On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: Again, my lying eyes: Norwegian man sentenced to 21 days conditional imprisonment for calling transwoman old man This guy was going out of his way to repeatedly harass (and possibly threaten?) somebody. Maybe the judge made a wise ruling. Maybe he didn't. Regardless, this doesn't support your claim that there is a law in Norway that makes "the non-use of preferred pronouns" a crime. On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: Again, my lying eyes: Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined See also here: In NYC, you can be fined $250,000 for not using 'preferred gender pronouns' Why should I pay any attention to such dishonest sources? The truth is that the The New York City Human Rights Law protects from discrimination in employment and housing based on age, race, disability, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. Gender identity was added to that list. That's all. So are you opposed to anti-discrimination laws in general, or are you merely opposed them being extended to include gender identity as a protected class? On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: Ask yourself this: If a governmental entity passed a regulation that required its employees to refer to Russell M. Nelson as "Our Beloved Prophet," would you be okay with that? If not, why not? If a governmental entity passed a regulation prohibiting its employees from using "preferred pronouns," and to instead only use normative pronouns reflecting the biological sex of the referenced individual, would you be okay with that? I suspect . . . not. And I wouldn't blame you for not being okay with these things. However, I would note the, shall we say, selective and inconsistent applicaton of your reasoning. My reasoning? I'm merely trying to shed some light on the truth of what the policy actually is. The attorneys who work for Louden County approved this policy and it is their reasoning you should try to understand, not mine. I don't know the nuances of how well their reasoning is. I'm merely pointing out that the policy doesn't say what you claimed it says. On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: So you are not in favor of laws that fine and punish people who refuse to say things they don't want to say? AFAF. Again, are you not in favor of laws that fine and punish people who refuse to say things they don't want to say? This question doesn't make any sense to me and covers such a wide variety of issues I have no idea what to make of it. If somebody is testifying in court and doesn't want to tell the truth, am I in favor of a fine and punishment if they don't tell the truth? If a biology teacher doesn't want to teach evolution, am I in favor of firing her for not doing her job? If a bar manager wants to call an employee as “sweetheart”, “honey”, and “pinky", rather than "Jessie", am I in favor of his employer requiring him to call her Jessie as a condition of employment? Am I in favor of laws that require workers to be respectful to Mormons at work and not harass them because of their religion? On 7/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, smac97 said: In the future I will, in deference to your sensibilities, refrain from using your IRL name (given the above post, it had not occurred to my that you would find this problematic). The specific board rules ban the following behavior: Posting personal or identifying information about others The fact that somebody could do some relatively deep research and figure out who I am doesn't mitigate the actual rule: don't post personal or identifying information about others. Thanks 1
smac97 Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 (edited) 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote It is Orwellian to apologize for referencing a character's biologically male parent as "father." That isn't Orwellian and that isn't what happened. Manifestly and profoundly Orwellian. And that is what happened: "In a recent interview on BBC World Service, reported by Variety, Kauffman stated it was a mistake to refer to Chandler's trans mother as his 'father.'" 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote Was or was not Declan Armstrong convicted of a crime? Yes, Declan Armstrong was convicted of a crime. Quote And was or was not that crime comprised of "misgendering" another person? No, that crime was not comprised of "misgendering" another person Yes, it was: Quote A teenager with Aspergers was fined nearly $800 and be placed under a strict 3-month curfew for asking an apparently transgender police support officer, “is it a boy or is it a girl?” Declan Armstrong (19) is said to have offended the officer, Connor Freel, who was reportedly left “upset and embarrassed” by the question. Freel’s counsel elaborated on how he reacted: Quote “To have something shouted at him that had such personal connotations whilst he was on his own in the middle of a public place that was rather busy due to market day footfall did leave him vulnerable, distressed, and embarrassed.” It also made Freel “reluctant” to work by himself in the future. While Armstrong denies asking the question, he was convicted of violating the Welsh Public Order Act 1986 by “using abusive or insulting words with intent to cause harassment.” His sentence was also raised from “a low level to a medium level community order because of its transphobic nature.” Of the fine, $261 went directly to Freel. ... The Crown Prosecution added: “Comments deliberately targeting a person in this way have no place in modern society. The CPS takes any hate crime allegation extremely seriously and we will robustly prosecute cases that meet the Code for Crown Prosecutors.” More here: Quote She said: 'Declan then shouted very loudly: 'Is it a boy or is it a girl?'.' She said when Mr Freel looked over at Armstrong he made the comment loudly again. Miss Jackson said: 'Due to his transgender when Connor heard Declan say what he said it left him feeling upset and embarrassed.' In a statement Mr Freel outlined the work he had done to raise awareness of transphobic hate crime. That included being part of a Victim Support campaign and being interviewed on the television - and he was aware by putting himself in the public eye he may be open to repercussions. But he said he wanted to show more vulnerable members of the community that being transgender was not something to hide. Miss Jackson said: 'To have something shouted at him that had such personal connotations whilst he was on his own in the middle of a public place that was rather busy due to market day footfall did leave him vulnerable, distressed, and embarrassed.' ... Armstrong was ordered to pay £200 compensation to Mr Freel, a £90 victim surcharge, and £300 contribution to the prosecution costs. He was given a 12-week curfew requirement ordering him to stay at his home address between 9pm and 7am. After the conviction, Edward Marsh of the CPS said: 'Comments deliberately targeting a person in this way have no place in modern society. 'The CPS takes any hate crime allegation extremely seriously and we will robustly prosecute cases that meet the Code for Crown Prosecutors.' In 2018-2019, the CPS secured convictions in 84 per cent of the hate crime cases it prosecuted and, due to the severity of hate crime, the courts increased the sentences handed down in 74 per cent of these convictions. (Emphases added.). The prosecutor/CPS treated and characterized Armstrong's behavior as a "hate crime." The judge treated and characterized Armstrong's behavior as a "hate crime." The police officer treated and characterized Armstrong's behavior as a "hate crime." But according to you, it was not a hate crime. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: (why did you put "misgendering" in quotation marks? Because it is a loaded and risible term. Because the usage of scare quotes is well-known. Because the word presupposes that which has yet to be demonstrated. Because the word is often used in a counterfactual way. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: That word has nothing to do with the crime, the story, or the law. Sure it does. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: The quotation marks falsely imply the story uses that term). No, it does not. The term is frequently used when discussing "preferred pronouns." 9 hours ago, Analytics said: The crime consisted of repeatedly shouting "abusive comments" at a "police community support officer" in a crowded public space. Fascinating. I'm content to let the readers review what those "abusive comments" were (hint: it involves purported "misgendering" of a trans police officer by a young man with limited cognitive abilities). No threats in what he said. No violence. Just words. But because some people don't like those words, they are okay with the State punishing individuals who don't use the right words, the preferred words, the compelled words. They are okay with fines and (presumably) imprisonment based on the content of speech, and/or based on resistance to compelled speech. When otherwise intelligent informed and reasonable people sign up for this sort of recklessly-indifferent-or-even-overtly-hostile-to-basic-Free-Speech-principles approach, we as a society are getting in trouble. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm having a really hard time taking you seriously here. The sentiment is more or less reciprocated. These are real threats to free speech, and you - on purely ideological grounds - are denying their very existence (by way of example as to the reality of what is going on, I refer you to the Sixth Circuit decision described at the end of this post). And you bolster and shore up your denials by resorting to implicit and explicit ad hominem insults. Over and over. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: First you claim Scotland has a law that makes the "non-use of preferred pronouns a hate crime." Yes. Scotland apparently has a law that can be applied to criminally punish "misgendering" someone, a/k/a "non-use of preferred pronouns." Declan Armstrong was convicted under this law (or one of them), which involved officials characterized as a "hate crime." 9 hours ago, Analytics said: To back this up, you refer us to the Declan Armstrong case, but then claim it's isn't about "the non-use of preferred pronouns" but rather "misgendering". I haven't claimed that. "Misgendering" is a loaded term, but it generally correlates with "the non-use of preferred pronouns." These things are examples of compelled speech that I find deeply troubling. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Neither the law nor the case is about misgendering or the non-use of preferred pronouns. Baloney. The prosecutor/CPS treated Armstrong's behavior as a "hate crime." It used that very phrase when referencing what Declan Armstrong did. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: In fact, Armstrong was convicted 18 months before the hate-crime law was passed. And yet . . . he was still convicted of what the prosecutor called "hate crime," which was . . . speaking words out loud. Words with no threat of violence or obscenity. Words pertaining to gender. Words which the police officer, the prosecutor, and the judge used to criminally punish him. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Maybe the police community support officer was a snowflake. No "maybe" about it. Regardless, Declan Armstrong was still convicted of a "hate crime" because he spoke words pertaining to a trans person's pronouns. Here is my message about that: Officer Freel, Grow up and don't be such a dainty doily. A police officer who cannot handle an incident so utterly banal and trivial (that is, words uttered by a young man with Asperger's Syndrome about your sex) has no business being on the beat. As a matter of mostly indifference, I would normally defer to your preferred - albeit counterfactual - "identity" as a man. But since we aren't in normal circumstances, and given the absurdity of having witnessed you seek the criminal prosecution of a mentally limited young man for being confused about the same thing you are confused about, I'll say this: You are a woman. You are an adult human female. You can no more become a man, an adult human male, by "identifying" as one than you can become a wolf or an orchid or a brown dwarf star by "identifying" as one of those. Dr. Paul McHugh the university distinguished service professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, explains: Quote The Emperor’s New Clothes {T}he meme—that your sex is a feeling, not a biological fact, and can change at any time—marches on through our society. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the Hans Christian Andersen tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of special beauty imperceptible to the rude or uncultured, paraded naked through his town to the huzzahs of courtiers and citizens anxious about their reputations. Many onlookers to the contemporary transgender parade, knowing that a disfavored opinion is worse than bad taste today, similarly fear to identify it as a misapprehension. I am ever trying to be the boy among the bystanders who points to what’s real. I do so not only because truth matters, but also because overlooked amid the hoopla—enhanced now by Bruce Jenner’s celebrity and Annie Leibovitz’s photography—stand many victims. Think, for example, of the parents whom no one—not doctors, schools, nor even churches—will help to rescue their children from these strange notions of being transgendered and the problematic lives these notions herald. These youngsters now far outnumber the Bruce Jenner type of transgender. Although they may be encouraged by his public reception, these children generally come to their ideas about their sex not through erotic interests but through a variety of youthful psychosocial conflicts and concerns. First, though, let us address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade: the idea that exchange of one’s sex is possible. It, like the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future. When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers. Per this BBC article, you were "born a female" but you always felt you had been born in the "wrong body," so at 15 you "changed {your} name" and "transition{ed} to living as a man." Unfortunately, you have since endured abuse and mistreatment. There is no excuse for such behavior from others. You have also publicly stated that you have "undergone hormone treatment, as well as chest surgery." You have also stated that you have "a male body shape and no-one suspects I was born female." Again, as we are not in normal circumstances, I will say this: You have mutilated your body by cutting off healthy portions of it and injecting it with hormones intended to faciliate the growth of facial hair and other typically "male" secondary sex characteristics. While these radical medical procedures apparently fool most passersby, in that "no-one suspects {you were} born female," the fact remains that you were "born female" and will also eventually die as one. I would normally not say such things to a stranger, as I would not find it within my province to do so. But since you have chosen to impose your worldview and opinion on others (by seeking criminal prosecution of Declan Armstrong), I suppose a measure of turnabout is fair play (with the proviso that "turnabout" = "sharing my opinion," because unlike you, I have no desire to actually "impose" my opinion on others or - much worse - seek to use the coercive power of the State to do so). To be "female" is to be "of, relating to, or being a person with a certain combination of sex characteristics, commonly including two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei, a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and enlarged breasts developed at puberty," and to be a "woman" is to be "an adult female person." Conversely, to be "male" is to be "of, relating to, or being a person with a certain combination of sex characteristics, commonly including an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei, a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and facial hair developed at puberty," and to be a "man" is to be "an adult male person." The sexual binary is beyond reasonable dispute. There are two sexes: male and female, man and woman. That's it. These categories are rooted in biology and fact, and efforts to conflate them, to make them interchangeable, to make these categories subject to individualized ideas and preferences, does not work. No matter how sincerely I may feel was born in the "wrong body," I cannot alter the reality of that body. I am a man. A male. Adopting mannerisms and affectations, and using clothing and hair and makeup choices, to make me superficially look like a woman may end up fooling some people, but the reality of me being male remains. Undergoing radical medical and surgical treatments to chemically and physically alter my body may improve the deception of me "being" a woman, but the deception still remains. I cannot "identify" as being an age I am not, or "identify" as having parentage/ancestry I do not have, or "identify" as being a species other than what I am. No matter how much and how strongly I may "identify" and "feel" as these other things, I cannot change biological fact. Since the 1960s some overzealous idealogues have tried, with some substantial success, to appropriate "gender" (originally only a grammatical categorization) and differentiate it from "sex," with the idea that it (gender) is merely a social construct, such that a female person who "identifies" as a "man" can and ought to be treated as if she were a man, biological reality notwithstanding. See, e.g., here: Quote Britain, like many other countries, was planning to grant gender-dysphoric people a route to legal recognition as members of the opposite sex. Under the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) of 2004, after a psychological evaluation and two years presenting themselves in their preferred sex role, they could change the sex on their birth certificates. Melissa, who takes female hormones and has undergone surgery to refashion her genitals into a female form, is now legally a woman. “People take me for what they see,” she says. “That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” The motive for such laws was largely compassion. Gender dysphoria was viewed as a rare and distressing condition that could be alleviated by accommodating sufferers as legal exceptions to the rules of biology. But a decade and a half later, a more radical notion is sweeping across the Western world, with English-speaking countries in the vanguard. The brainchild of a few sexologists, trans-activists and academics, it has spread via lobby groups and the internet, and on liberal campuses. It is now becoming consolidated in practice and codified into law, with profound consequences—not just for people who wish they had been born the opposite sex, but for everyone. That notion is the deceptively simple, quasi-mystical idea that everyone is born with a “gender identity”—an innate sense of being a man or woman that usually, but not always, aligns with biological sex. If the two are in conflict, the person is “transgender” and it is their gender identity, not their biological sex, that indicates who they truly are. The theory has been expanded to include people who regard themselves non-binary, “agender,” gender-fluid or a host of other terms, meaning that they belong to neither sex or feel located at some indeterminate (and possibly shifting) point between the two. According to this theory, no one can determine a person’s gender identity except that person, and no one else can challenge it. As with religious belief, it is entirely subjective. A simple declaration—“gender self-identification”—is all it takes to override biology. See also here: Quote It’s now okay for a man to hit a woman. That, in effect, is what a mixed martial arts league decided when it allowed Fallon Fox, a biological male, to fight as a woman simply because he identifies as one. And the consequence of this decision? Fox sent female fighter Tamikka Brents to the hospital with a broken skull and a concussion. Brents needed seven surgical staples to bind her wounds. The battered woman, a trained fighter herself, said of her match with Fox, “I’ve never felt so overpowered in my life.” Twenty years ago, if a man hit a woman so hard that he sent her to the hospital, he’d be in prison. Now he can get paid for it. Today we are told that male and female are one and the same. This denial of male-female differences has led to the astonishing belief that men and women are not born male or female; they are whatever gender they say they are. Facebook went so far as to offer its users over 50 genders to choose from. Know what a “demi-boy” is? Me, neither. The idea that gender-identification is now a personal choice might sound enlightened to some, but it’s actually a very anti-scientific view of one of the essential facts of life: men and women are inherently different. Their brains are different, their hormones are different, their chromosomes are different, and, of course, their bodies are different. No amount of peer-reviewed papers from gender studies departments can change this. But that won’t stop the progressive elites who run our universities, news media, many of our biggest companies, and even our high schools and elementary schools from trying. For their efforts, women will pay an especially high price. That’s because the men-and-women-are-the-same argument invariably leads women to be judged against a male standard. Or, to put it another way, to be more of a woman, a woman has to be more like a man. She has to want to have casual sex like a man; to serve in combat like a man; to pursue a career with single-minded intensity like a man. Of course, there are exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of women aren’t seeking casual sex; don’t have the physical strength of men; and don’t share the same work-life priorities as men. Ironically, this quest for sameness is occurring at a time when science is telling us, more emphatically than ever, that we are different. So, what your grandmother took for granted – men and women are different – science now confirms. But there is no room for science in, say, stores like Target or Toys R Us, where toys are no longer divided into the boy section and the girl section. Or in a North Carolina school district, where students can no longer be called “boys and girls” but only “students.” Or in college dorms, where co-ed bathrooms and even co-ed bedrooms are increasingly common. For the tiny percentage of people who experience gender dysphoria, we should have nothing but compassion. We should do everything we can to help them and protect their dignity, but we don’t need to overturn biologically defined sex differences to do so. But that’s what’s happening. Using the wrong pronoun at the office might get you fired. In Canada, it might land you in court. In mixed martial arts, as we have seen, it can lead to getting your head bashed in. Apparently, this is a small price to pay in a world where we must all genuflect to political correctness. Even after being hospitalized, Tamikka Brents knew she had to toe the PC line. When asked how she explained why she lost so badly to a man who said he was a woman, she said: “I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not, because I’m not a doctor.” Vice Magazine, writing about the incident, had no sympathy for Brents. Why should they? As they wrote, “…biological sex isn’t black and white.” But in virtually every instance, it is. The longer we allow the obvious to go unstated and undefended, the worse it will be – for boys and girls, and for men and women. But especially for women. The sexes are different. Rather than trying to quash this reality, which can only lead to more needless confusion and suffering, not less, we should step back and marvel at it. And enjoy it. Male-female differences are among the most wonderful things in life. "But in virtually every instance, {biological sex is black and white}. The longer we allow the obvious to go unstated and undefended, the worse it will be – for boys and girls, and for men and women. But especially for women." Yep. I am genuinely sorry that you have grown up in a milieu where people around you - some of whom are genuinely well-intentioned (though, I think, substantially misguided) and others who have more insidious and malevolent objectives - have persuaded the State to affirm and ratify the counterfactual claim that you are a man. And worse, the State in which you live is now empowered to use fines, and perhaps even imprisonment, to punish other people who do not want to go along with your Gender Dysphoria. I hope the day comes when you will recognize that Gender Dysphoria does not supplant biological reality. Meanwhile, I must grimly resist what you are doing. It is wrong. It is counterfactual. It is a gross violation of the basic principles of Free Speech for you to be able to use the State to punish other people when you disagree with their speech, or when you decline to say what you want them to say. That makes you a bully, and - given your newfound ability to exert the force of law to bend others to your will or punish them for failing to - a dangerous bully. Dangerous because you've been fed a pack of falsehoods and now want to impose them on others. Dangerous because you are in law enforcement, an extension of the power of the State. Dangerous because what you are doing is antithetical to Free Speech and Free Will. I have no desire to be cruel or unkind, but nor do I have any intention of being coerced into perpetuating or going along with a rank falsehood or being threatened or shamed into silence in the face of it. So in my own exceedingly trivial and uninfluential way, I voice my disagreement with you. I defy you. And fortunately, I live in America, such that I can say these things without fear of incurring criminal liability such as what you sought to have inflicted on Declan Armstrong. At present, I have that freedom, and I am grateful for it. {/message} 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Maybe the questions that were repeatedly yelled really weren't abusive. Again, this is fascinating. A person of your experience and education and intellect just breezing on by the threat to Free Speech found here. I would have hoped that Americans would place Free Speech in higher regard than this. that they would not trade it for the Mess of Pottage associated with going along with encroachments such as those we have been discussing. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Regardless, this story doesn't support your claim; the non-use of preferred pronouns is legal in Scotland. And yet Declan Armstrong was convicted of a "hate crime" for . . . speaking words pertaining to a trans person's pronouns. Again, I'm content to let the reader decide. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote I'm genuinely curious how you will respond to these questions. That folks opposed to people like you have managed to stave off such a serious encroachment to Free Speech doesn't negate the attempt at the encroachment, which apparently remains to some extent due to inherent (likely deliberately so) vagueness in the law. People like me? What are you talking about? I am talking about people who are either A) indifferent to or B) supportive of the State punishing people for the content of their speech, for their resisting compelled speech. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm simply arguing for honesty about what's going on. Funny. It seems like you are arguing in favor of the State punishing people for the content of their speech, for resisting compelled speech. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: I resent you scouring the Internet for things to be offended by, I am not presenting these as "things to be offended by." I am presenting them as examples of encroachments on Free Speech. As examples of the State punishing people for the content of their speech, for resisting compelled speech. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: consistently misrepresenting the facts, I'm not doing that. I didn't call what Declan Armstrong did a "hate crime." The prosecutor did. I am providing links to the news and other sources of "facts." 9 hours ago, Analytics said: and then declaring that these supposed villains are on "my side" of some debate. I am talking about people who are either A) indifferent to or B) supportive of the State punishing people for the content of their speech, for their resisting compelled speech. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, don't. But based on what you've said, I surmise that it seems to fit. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Again, nobody in Scotland was convicted of the imaginary crime of "misgendering" somebody. Declan Amrstrong was convicted of a "hate crime" for doing something. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote Misgendering Is a Human Rights Violation, Canadian Court Rules Sigh. Here's what really happened. {SNIP} I provided a link that explains what happened, which involved a lawsuit about "using incorrect pronouns." The trans person, who won the case, had an attorney who publicly declared after the decision that “the correct pronouns for transgender people are not optional. ... It’s not an option to respect the pronouns that trans people choose for themselves. It’s a legal requirement to use the pronouns that a trans person uses for themselves and asks to have used in the workplace." 9 hours ago, Analytics said: In general, do you think free speech should give people the right to harass employees and coworkers at work about their race, religion, national origin, etc.? Characterizing "misgendering" or non-use of preferred pronouns as "harassment" is a very good Trojan Horse. A very good way to circumvent and stifle Free Speech. A very good way to rationalize and justify the State punishing people for the content of their speech for their resisting compelled speech. I think this will be happening more and more in the future. To answer your question, I think "misgendering" or the non-use of preferred pronouns is protected speech. Conversely, using the State to punish people who "misgender" or decline to use preferred pronouns, is compelled speech, a serious encroachment on Free Speech, and a fairly significant step toward submitting to ever-increating surrenderings of basic individual rights. I think the State, on its own, would probably not be doing much about these things. I think the reason we are seeing these legal issues arise - in Scotland, Canada, Norway, New York, California, etc. - is because there are radical activists who want to foist their views onto other people, and/or punish anyone who resists such foisting. And I think this foisting has become so trendy and "mainstream" that otherwise reasonable and educated and informed people are not only buying into it, but joining in its advocacy. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm trying to understand if you are opposed to the actual law here, or are merely opposed to your wildly irrelevant straw man. As I said previously: I am not fan of incivility. I am a very big fan of Free Speech. I am not a fan of threats, either. I do not believe threats are, or should be, construed as "protected" speech. However, I think there is a real risk of "mission creep," of the temptation by folks on your side of the debate to encourage the passage of vague and broadly-worded laws that seem facially reasonable, but which are broad enough to punish ideological opponents for the content of their speech, and even to punish them for not submitting to compelled speech (such as preferred pronouns). 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Are you opposed to human rights laws in general, or are you just opposed to these human rights being extended to the class of transgender people? Yawn. I have no qualms with trans people. I do, however, oppose those of them and likeminded others who are abusing the rights of others, who are in favor of using the force of the State to punish other people with fines and/or imprisonment due to A) the content of their speech, and/or B) their resisting compelled speech. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote And here: The "crime" here was disobeying a court order. That is, a court order from a government official to a private citizen compelling him to use "preferred pronouns." Sigh. Do you always turn to partisan editorials to understand the nuances of court opinions? Alas, media is virtually always "partisan" these days. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: The court didn't compel a private citizen to use preferred pronouns in general. "In general." Wow. Snuck that in there, didn't ya? So a government official can send someone to jail for not using preferred pronouns, just as long as it's not an "in general" kind of thing? Subversion of fundamental rights is seldom a one-and-done event. Rather, the subversion comes in fits and spurts. Incrementally. No such much "frontal assaults" on Free Speech, but instead subtle encroachments here and there. It is at this phase that tactics like "plausible deniability" and gaslighting are quite potent. Anyone who raises a concern can be ridiculed as an alarmist or - as you so regularly demonstrate - disparaged as a liar and bigot. Here's an example I just saw the other day: "Are you opposed to human rights laws in general, or are you just opposed to these human rights being extended to the class of transgender people?" 9 hours ago, Analytics said: In fact, the court didn't compel a private citizen to use preferred pronouns at all. The context of this is an ugly custody battle, and a judge was trying to find a reasonable accommodation that would allow for joint custody. From this story: Quote The man — whose identity is reportedly under a publication ban by a British Columbia Court of Appeals to protect his child — was found in contempt of court and arrested Tuesday for calling the teen his daughter and publicly referring to him with the pronouns “she” and “her,” according to The Post Millennial. And here: Quote The warrant was issued by a judge for the arrest of a father after calling his biological female child his "daughter," and referring to her with the pronouns "she" and "her." The father was found to be in contempt of court. The father is a father to a gender non-conforming biological female 16-year-old who identifies as transgender and prefers the use of male pronouns. The father has repeatedly called this person his daughter, though the court has forbade it. The transition has been underway for more than two years. ... A summary of the gag order: "[1] AB, a 14 year old transgender boy, applies for a protection order to restrain his father, CD, from publishing, speaking or giving interviews about this case or about AB’s personal and medical information. "a) CD shall be restrained from: i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties; (Emphases added.) That sure sounds pretty "the court {} compel{ling} a private citizen to use preferred pronouns"-ish to me. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Here is an analogy. {SNIP} Not a very good one. Again, from the gag order: "CD shall be restrained from ... referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties." Are you sure this isn't compelled speech? Are you sure this is not an encroachment on Free Speech? 9 hours ago, Analytics said: A couple with a teenager gets divorced when the husband becomes a bitter exMormon and the wife and teenager are faithful members. The parents try to negotiate joint custody, but every time the teenager returns from staying with the father she is crying because he insists on continually berating the Church and its members (including his exwife and child) whenever he is with her. The teenager is a faithful member who really believes the Church, and a psychologist determines that the Church really is a positive influence in the teenager's life. In such a case, would it be reasonable for a judge to say, "Look. You are totally free to badmouth the Mormon Church when you aren't with your child. But if you'd like joint custody, you can't berate your child's religion when you are together." Golly, no potential threat to Free Speech there. Gag orders can easily run afoul of Free Speech, particularly in a "prior restraint" kind of way. See, e.g., here: Quote Gag orders — issued by a court, government, or private entity — require an individual to refrain from making public comments. Typically, judges issue injunctions barring trial participants — including attorneys, litigants, and witnesses — from discussing trial-related material outside the courtroom. In general, courts have held that gagging people involved in trials is more acceptable than similar orders issued against the press. In Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada (1991), the Supreme Court held that attorneys who make out-of-court statements are not entitled to the same level of protection as the media. Gag orders on the press represent a form of prior restraint and are seldom upheld. ... Some see gag orders as First Amendment threat Across appellate court jurisdictions, judges strike down as well as uphold gag orders, but most gag orders go unchallenged. Opponents of gag orders argue that judges should be subjected to strict standards before gagging trial participants. They also contend that judges frequently use gag orders without looking at viable alternatives and charge that many orders are too broad and should be limited to specific information; in addition, they hinder the newsgathering abilities of the press and restrict the flow of information to the public. In short, many civil libertarians and journalists see gag orders as a threat to the First Amendment guarantee of a free press, while judges see them as inherently necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. And here: Quote Gag orders implicate the public’s and litigants’ First Amendment rights. On the one hand, they threaten the public’s First Amendment’s right of access to the courtroom. A courtroom is a presumptively open space. In the 1980s, over a series of cases, the Supreme Court declared a First Amendment-based right of access to the courtroom—Americans have a right to know what is going on in their courts.[2] Beyond this right to judicial openness, however, gag orders also function as prior restraints on speech. Prior restraints—judicial orders that proactively prohibit people from talking, rather than allowing for after-the-fact litigation over what was said—are presumptively unconstitutional.[3] Not allowing a broad swath of speech is antithetical to the First Amendment—and further, such an approach is generally overbroad, because speech at the edges of the gag order might be chilled. This is in contrast to a post-trial defamation suit against that newspaper for what it published about the trial, which allows for more procedural protections and less chilling, and is therefore less susceptible to scrutiny under the First Amendment. This isn't an all-or-nothing thing. Judges have quite a bit of discretion in issuing orders to litigants, but that discretion is not unlimited, and overly-broad "prior restraint" restrictions like "CD shall be restrained from ... referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties" seem really susceptible to abuse. This is particularly so where the speaker's words are either factually accurate (his biologically female daughter is a "she") or, at the very least, within reasonable dispute. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Regardless, this editorial doesn't support your assertion that there is a law in Canada that makes "the non-use of preferred pronouns" a crime. Yes, I think it does. Incremental encroachments. That is what we are seeing. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote Again, my lying eyes: Norwegian man sentenced to 21 days conditional imprisonment for calling transwoman old man This guy was going out of his way to repeatedly harass (and possibly threaten?) somebody. And so you are . . . okay with him being jailed for speaking words on Facebook? (Also, I saw nothing in the article about "threats." Where are you getting that?) SMH. That's an acronym for "Shaking My Head," right? I've never used it before. It's apropos here, though. When Americans of your stature and intelligence are A) indifferent to or B) supportive of the State punishing people for the content of their speech, for their resisting compelled speech, I think there is substantial reason to be concerned about encroachments on basic civil liberties. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Maybe the judge made a wise ruling. Maybe he didn't. Regardless, this doesn't support your claim that there is a law in Norway that makes "the non-use of preferred pronouns" a crime. Actually, I think it does. "The 52 year old man from the bergen area wrote a series of insulting comments about her gender identity, after while knowing that she had changed her gender." "This is probably the first conviction in Norway after the criminal law was tightened in december 2020." "The new subsection in paragraph 185 states that it is not permitted to state discriminatory or hateful things on the basis of someone's gender identity or gender expression." "{T}he district court found the man guilty of making hate speech against the trans woman in a comment field on Facebook." "The woman said that the worst was when the comments were written. 'He proceeded during the trial, not with the same type of incitement, but with erroneous sex. Wrong pronoun and use the wrong name for me', she says to NRK." "The man who has now been convicted admits that he wrote the comments, but that they must be within freedom of speech." "The district court completely disagrees with this and believes that it must react strictly to such statements. 'They violate protected groups of people and which in practice means that those who are exposed to it limit their participation in public debates', the court writes." "They sentenced the man to prison on conditions for 21 days and a fine of 15,000 kroner. The man must also pay the court 3,000 kroner in legal costs." And this: "For the random trans woman, it is a great relief that the district court chose to convict the man for what he wrote. 'Those who know me are mostly decent people. There are very few times this happens. But when someone tries to use this against me to hurt me, then I'm pretty quick to state that I wont tolerate it,' she says." You bet she "won't tolerate it." She doesn't have to because she can use the force of government to criminallly punish (as in fines and imprisonment) anyone who uses words she does not like, or who refuse to use words she does like. Are you sure this isn't compelled speech? Are you sure this is not an encroachment on Free Speech? 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote Again, my lying eyes: Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined See also here: In NYC, you can be fined $250,000 for not using 'preferred gender pronouns' Why should I pay any attention to such dishonest sources? Straight up ad hominem. You have no obligation whatsoever to listen to viewpoints with which you disagree. But I think you'll have a better understanding of things if you do. This is a big part of why I have been on this board since 2004, talking with and listening to people who disagree with me. Some of them have been "dishonest," but I think most are better characterized as having different perspectives, priorities and opinions. From the second link above: Quote NYC can fine you $250k for wrong gender pronouns. The trend of universities to use gender neutral pronouns does not stop with higher education. New York City has threatened employers, landlords, businesses, and professionals with fines if they do not use an individual’s preferred gender, Eugene Volokh wrote for The Washington Post. Volokh warns that “this is [not] likely to stay in New York City” either, and could be enforced at the state or federal level. For those who wish to avoid “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct,” the New York City Commissions on Human Rights has some guidance on obeying the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)... Eugene Volokh is well-respected constitutional scholar and professor of law at UCLA. I've been reading his materials for years. When he says that this sort of thing "'is [not] likely to stay in New York City'" and could be enforced at the state or federal level, I tend to perk up and listen. I'm not saying he's necessarily correct. But I think his survey of this issue is, candidly, more informed and more likely to be accurate than yours. Here is a longer excerpt of Volokh's comments: Quote In a recent Volokh Conspiracy post, Eugene Volokh exposes the absurdity and unconstitutionality of the New York City Human Rights Commission’s claim that city law requires employers, landlords, businesses, and professionals to refer to their employees, tenants, customers, and clients by their preferred pronouns (and titles). Some excerpts: So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie. "So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie." Not much in there I see as "dishonest." Quote We have to use “ze,” a made-up word that carries an obvious political connotation (endorsement of the “non-binary” view of gender). Yep. You are trying to justify such impositions by A) characterizing compliance with such compelled speech as "politeness" or not being "rude," and B) disparaging people who are averse to compelled speech as bigots and liars. Meanwhile, you are ignoring the elephant in the room. This is a clear encroachment on to Free Speech. It just happens to be one which some folks are either indifferent to or else actively and affirmatively support. Quote We have to call people “him” and “her” even if we believe that people’s genders are determined by their biological sex and not by their self-perceptions — perceptions that, by the way, can rapidly change, for those who are “gender-fluid” — and that using terms tied to self-perception is basically a lie. (I myself am not sure whether people who are anatomically male, for example, but perceive themselves as female should be viewed as men or women; perhaps one day I’ll be persuaded that they should be viewed as women; my objection is to being forced to express that view.) Yep. Massive governmental fines that can be assessed against Private Party A based on the arbitrary preferences of Private Party B. This seems like a pretty serious concern. Quote We can’t be required to even display a license plate that says “Live Free or Die” on our car, if we object to the message; that’s what the court held in Wooley v. Maynard (1978). But New York is requiring people to actually say words that convey a message of approval of the view that gender is a matter of self-perception rather than anatomy, and that, as to “ze,” were deliberately created to convey that a message. Yep. "Compelled speech." Quote What’s more, according to the City, “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.” … So an employer or business that learns that its employees or patrons are “refus[ing] to use a transgender employee’s preferred” pronoun or title would have to threaten to fire or eject such people unless they comply with the City’s demands. But of course “ze” and “Ms./Mrs.” are just examples. We have to use the person’s “preferred … pronoun and title,” whatever those preferences might be. Some people could say they prefer “glugga” just as well as saying “ze”; the whole point is that people are supposed to be free to define their own gender, and their own pronouns and titles.… Or what if some people insist that their title is “Milord,” or “Your Holiness”? They may look like non-gender-related titles, but who’s to say? What if someone decides that one of the 56 genders is indeed especially noble or holy and that those really are the preferred gender terms? … And this isn’t just the government as employer, requiring its employees to say things that keep government patrons happy with government services. This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak. (Emphasis added.) This sure seems like an encroachment on Free Speech. This is a reasonable concern. And your boilerplate response of, in essence, "Shut up, bigot" doesn't do much to mitigate that concern. Quote Nor is this likely to stay in New York City: The New York officials are arguing that this is just what the New York gender identity discrimination ban requires, and indeed it is part of the standard ideology expressed by many transgender rights activists…. Feel uncomfortable about being forced to use terms that express social status views (“Milord”) or religious views (“Your Holiness”) that you may not endorse? Well, you should feel uncomfortable about people being forced to use “ze,” which expresses a view about gender that they might not endorse. And, more broadly, I think we should all feel uncomfortable about government regulators forcing people to say things that convey and support the government’s ideology about gender. (Emphases added.) Good luck to the folks who are advocating for this sort of punitive State action against Free Speech and against resistance to compelled speech. Sooner or later the screw will turn, and it will be your speech and your civil liberties and your money in the at risk. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: The truth is that the The New York City Human Rights Law protects from discrimination in employment and housing based on age, race, disability, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. Gender identity was added to that list. That's all. Well, let's apply what Prof. Volokh suggested. Analytics, from here on out I demand that you call me "Sir" or "Master." I also insist that you conclude each and every post with the sign-off "Grovelingly and Boot-lickingly Yours, Analytics." I also insist that you append to each and every reference to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the acronym "TOTALCUTFOTWE" (a shortened acronymic reference to D&C 1:30's "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth"). I insist that you say things things because anything less would be impolite and rude. That's all. Now, I don't for a minute expect you to comply with these demands, so I guess my next step would be to find a jurisdiction that would be willing to pass a financially ruinous law or regulation to compel you to say these things. I wonder what you would do then. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote Ask yourself this: If a governmental entity passed a regulation that required its employees to refer to Russell M. Nelson as "Our Beloved Prophet," would you be okay with that? If not, why not? If a governmental entity passed a regulation prohibiting its employees from using "preferred pronouns," and to instead only use normative pronouns reflecting the biological sex of the referenced individual, would you be okay with that? I suspect . . . not. And I wouldn't blame you for not being okay with these things. However, I would note the, shall we say, selective and inconsistent applicaton of your reasoning. My reasoning? I'm merely trying to shed some light on the truth of what the policy actually is. The attorneys who work for Louden County approved this policy and it is their reasoning you should try to understand, not mine. I don't know the nuances of how well their reasoning is. I'm merely pointing out that the policy doesn't say what you claimed it says. Dodge. Would you be okay with a governmental entity passed a regulation that required its employees to refer to Russell M. Nelson as "Our Beloved Prophet?" Would you be okay with a governmental entity passed a regulation prohibiting its employees from using 'preferred pronouns?'" 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote Quote Quote And given your publicly-declared devotion to the "In the interests of diversity and inclusion I am in favor of laws that fine and punish people who refuse to say the words I want them to say" school of reasoning... That is a lie. So you are not in favor of laws that fine and punish people who refuse to say things they don't want to say? This question doesn't make any sense to me Well, you seem to be prevaricating around the bush a lot. Are you in favor of laws that fine and/or otherwise punish people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" a trans person? 9 hours ago, Analytics said: and covers such a wide variety of issues I have no idea what to make of it. The New York law imposes massive fines against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone. Are you in favor of laws like this? 9 hours ago, Analytics said: If somebody is testifying in court and doesn't want to tell the truth, am I in favor of a fine and punishment if they don't tell the truth? Dodge. And an interesting one, as I think you are implying that you are "in favor of a fine and punishment" in those circumstances, and that by analogy you are also "in favor of a fine and punishment" against people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" someone. Am I wrong in this assessment? 9 hours ago, Analytics said: If a biology teacher doesn't want to teach evolution, am I in favor of firing her for not doing her job? A private school can do pretty much what it wants, as private parties cannot typically violate the Free Speech provision of the First Amendment. A public school, one owned by this or that government entity, on the other hand, is situated very differently. See here: Quote In American jurisprudence, public school teachers, as public employees, do not forfeit all of their First Amendment rights to free expression when they accept employment. Both in pursuing and in imparting knowledge to others, public school teachers share some of the academic freedoms exercised by their college and university counterparts, albeit with limitations sometimes justified by the immaturity of their students. The courts have ruled on several cases involving teachers’ expressive rights. ... Public employees no longer retain First Amendment protection for speech as part of their official duties Teachers asserting a First Amendment violation must now clear an additional hurdle, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006). In Garcetti the Court ruled that public employees do not retain First Amendment protection for speech as part of their official job duties. The question remains whether Garcetti should apply in the academic setting, where academic freedom introduces another level of constitutional concern. The majority acknowledged this distinction in stating “there is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this Court’s customary employee-speech jurisprudence.” Commentator Karen Daly notes that “Academic freedom is an ill-defined concept, especially when imported from the university campus to secondary and elementary schools.” Only time will tell which standard — the Pickering or the Hazelwood standard — will apply to the majority of public school teachers’ First Amendment claims and whether Garcetti will have an indelible effect. Garcetti has been used to limit classroom speech Several lower courts have applied the Garcetti ruling broadly to limit teacher classroom speech. For example, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Brown v. Chicago Bd. of Educ. (7th Cir. 2016) that a public school teacher did not have a First Amendment claim when his principal disciplined him for using the N-word in a well-intentional lecture instructing students about not using racial slurs. Because of Garcetti, “Brown’s First Amendment claim fails right out of the gate,” the appeals court wrote. Many teachers have fared poorly in First Amendment lawsuits after being disciplined for social media posts. Many courts show deference to school officials in disciplining teachers for speech deemed inappropriate or likely to cause problems at school. The area of teacher free-speech rights is still evolving. Lower courts use a variety of standards from cases such as Pickering, Hazelwood, and Garcetti. Supreme Court review would provide much-needed guidance. So . . . a mixed bag. Meanwhile, you are not addressing the point I have raised. Are you in favor of laws that fine and/or otherwise punish people who refuse to use "preferred pronounds" and/or who "misgender" a trans person? 9 hours ago, Analytics said: If a bar manager wants to call an employee as “sweetheart”, “honey”, and “pinky", rather than "Jessie", am I in favor of his employer requiring him to call her Jessie as a condition of employment? "Free speech" v. sexual harassment statutes is also a mixed bag. See here. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Am I in favor of laws that require workers to be respectful to Mormons at work and not harass them because of their religion? I don't know. Are you? And what is "harassment" in this context? Is it "harassment" to call us "Mormons," since we prefer "Latter-day Saints?" And what if you want to call us "Mormons," regardless of our personal preferences? Do you want the State to be able to assess financially ruinous fines on you for choosing one word over another? For resisting being ordered by another person to say or not say certain words? 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote In the future I will, in deference to your sensibilities, refrain from using your IRL name (given the above post, it had not occurred to my that you would find this problematic). The specific board rules ban the following behavior: Posting personal or identifying information about others I didn't post your IRL information. You did. I just repeated it. Like you did with me here. FWIW, I used your first name here in June 2014, here in May 2016, here in December 2019, here in February 2022. I think I've used it quite a few times beyond these. And I don't think you have ever voiced or concern about it until now. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: The fact that somebody could do some relatively deep research and figure out who I am doesn't mitigate the actual rule: don't post personal or identifying information about others. You published your IRL information years ago, and I have repeatedly used it without question or complaint from you since. Again, in the future I will defer to your request. But I again reject the characterization that I "doxxed" you. I will close with this bit of actually quite good news from Sixth Circuit (from April 2021) : Quote In a victory for free speech, the rule of law, and common sense, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit recently ruled that a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio, could not be forced to use a transgender student’s “preferred pronouns,” and that his suit against the university for violation of his First and 14th Amendment rights could proceed. The court’s decision is the first of its kind, and establishes a needed boundary against American culture’s new, brutish sexual orthodoxy. At least within academia, one can no longer be compelled to say things one doesn’t believe. ... In Meriwether v. Hartop et al., an impatient panel for the 6th Circuit wasted no time with perfunctory legalese or institutional pandering. It cut right to the chase in its frustration with Shawnee State’s stamping out of debate and open dialogue vis-a-vis its malignant speech policy. The opinion, which was written by Judge Amul Thapar and joined by Judge Joan Larsen and Senior Judge David McKeague, begins: Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom. They have prided themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides. But Shawnee State chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech on a hotly contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the professor’s free-speech and free-exercise claims. We see things differently and reverse. The court went on to clarify that the Supreme Court has recognized that the government may not compel a speaker to affirm a belief with which the speaker disagrees. It added that courts have recognized that the free speech clause of the Constitution applies at public universities, and that “professors do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the [university] gate.” The court went on to clarify that the Supreme Court has recognized that the government may not compel a speaker to affirm a belief with which the speaker disagrees. It added that courts have recognized that the free speech clause of the Constitution applies at public universities, and that “professors do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the [university] gate.” Thapar, the first South Asian federal judge in American history, and the son of self-made immigrants from India, seemed hard-pressed in containing his displeasure at the university’s looseness with long-standing judicial principles. It’s clear he doesn’t take kindly to Shawnee State’s loutish attempts at conformity. In relaying a dizzying body of precedent, Thapar stressed that the court has rejected as “totally unpersuasive” the argument that “teachers have no First Amendment rights when teaching, or that the government can censor teacher speech without restriction.” Simply put, the judge wrote, professors at public universities retain First Amendment protections at least when engaged in core academic functions, such as teaching and scholarship because the need for free exchange of ideas in the college classroom is unlike that of other workplace settings. In a critical discussion on the use of pronouns themselves, Thapar wrote: [T]itles and pronouns carry a message. The university recognizes that and wants its professors to use pronouns to communicate a message: People can have a gender identity inconsistent with their sex at birth. But Meriwether does not agree with that message, and he does not want to communicate it to his students. That’s not a matter of classroom management; that’s a matter of academic speech… Never before have titles and pronouns been scrutinized as closely as they are today for their power to validate—or invalidate—someone’s perceived sex or gender identity. Meriwether took a side in that debate. Through his continued refusal to address Doe as a woman, he advanced a viewpoint on gender identity… Shawnee State allegedly flouted [a] core principle of the First Amendment. Taking the allegations as true, we hold that the university violated Meriwether’s free-speech rights. The court’s opinion in Meriwether v. Hartop is long overdue comfort to those who refuse to bend the knee on leftist groupthink—the kind that forces a subjective and manipulable view of one person’s self to become a defining reality for everyone else. It is a stake in the ground on behalf of religious dissenters and academic freedom. And—with poetic suitability to a Socratic dialogue—the decision reminds us that there are no “personal” truths, but only truths immemorial: realities that exists independent of our wishes to the contrary. Various gaslighting efforts notwithstanding, the "preferred pronouns" and "misgendering" movement is both substantial and dangerous. It is not an abstraction. It is not a merely hypothetical concern. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 12, 2022 by smac97 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I didn't post your IRL information. You did. I just repeated it. Like you did with me here. FWIW, I used your first name here in June 2014, here in May 2016, here in December 2019, here in February 2022. I think I've used it quite a few times beyond these. And I don't think you have ever voiced or concern about it until now. For what it’s worth, I too have in the past addressed Analytics in online posts by his first and possibly his last name and he had not, to my knowledge, objected to it. Though I will abide by his preference going forward, I’m genuinely amazed that he’s making an issue of it at this late juncture.
Recommended Posts