Current Affairs Free Speech

[Barnfred 55]

Free speech is always under threat when right leaning populist governments are in power, this is no different.

I'm assuming that you consider the current Tory Government to be a right leaning populist government (forgive me if I'm wrong lol)

Can I just ask in what regards is free speech under threat. I've always thought that the UK, whichever Government is in control at the time, has always been a place where you have been able to exercise that right to free speech.

There comes a time when free speech crosses the line into hate, bigotry and prejudice, and this country has done a lot to make such things a criminal offence in recent years. Such laws impose on the right to pure free speech, but that's a good thing. Isn't it?

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

Freedom of speech means you can speak freely without fear of being arrested

It doesn't make your speech free of consequence, nor does it entitle you to a platform

 

[ClausThomsen]

I absolutely agree gender dysphoria is real. I absolutely disagree that denying biological reality to make them feel better is the answer to it.

Instead, trans men and women should be celebrated as trans men and women, not men and women. Claiming a trans woman is literally a woman is as harmful as as gay conversion therapy claiming you can be cured of being gay - you can't. You can't 'cure' biological sex.

Here's your original post on the matter.....

The thing is that society has legitimised these nutters.

For example, if a woman gets a letter for a smear saying 'women aged 16-64 need to book an appointment' (my other half just has), I could - easily - complain about the use of the word 'women' used in that context, start a social media campaign and get thousands of people complaining about inherent NHS transphobia. Because you don't need to have a uterus to be a woman of course - that's the narrative now. It should be 'all persons with a uterus aged 16-64' naturally.

Formerly, doing something like this would be the work of a lunatic, but now this is happening all the time.

I've not got a smear test letter to hand but the NHS site says "All women and people with a cervix aged 25 to 64 should be invited by letter." so I'm surprised it doesn't carry that same terminology through to the letter itself.

As I say though, I don't have a letter to hand so I'll take your word for it.

Even so, I'm not sure how that slight change between those two examples is making any claim for ignoring the biological facts of a persons physical body.

A woman who has had a partial hysterectomy can still have a cervix. The pap smear test helps to detect cervical cancer.
A woman who has had a partial or full hysterectomy remains a woman even without her uterus and/or cervix.
A trans-man can have a womb and cervix.

That's why the narrative is "you don't need to have a uterus to be a woman". Because you don't need a uterus to be a biological woman.

Is changing the phrase from "all women with a cervix" to "all women and people with a cervix" really lunacy?

Not too long ago I had pretty much that binary M/F viewpoint but the more I've read about and heard about gender dysphoria and identity the more I've come to the conclusion that it's all become a bit more complicated than I previously thought and there has developed a medically recognised separation of biological sex and gender identity in a statistically small number of people.

It's really not a massive leap to accept that this recognition of trans people and their rights necessitates a slight reworking of grammar regarding gender.

The gay conversion or curing biological sex argument that you've attached to this is veering wildly into straw man territory. It's completely irrelevant and I haven't for one moment argued that a being tolerant of persons gender identity, especially in regard to gender dysphoria, redefines a persons sexual biology, physical medical needs or has anything to do with "curing" being gay.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Can I just ask in what regards is free speech under threat. I've always thought that the UK, whichever Government is in control at the time, has always been a place where you have been able to exercise that right to free speech

Your interrupting my life to a peaceful existence … lol

 

[Amw79]

Haha so now cancel culture exists?

nah, still doesn’t.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

So...

 

[Tubey]

Here's your original post on the matter.....



I've not got a smear test letter to hand but the NHS site says "All women and people with a cervix aged 25 to 64 should be invited by letter." so I'm surprised it doesn't carry that same terminology through to the letter itself.

As I say though, I don't have a letter to hand so I'll take your word for it.

Even so, I'm not sure how that slight change between those two examples is making any claim for ignoring the biological facts of a persons physical body.

A woman who has had a partial hysterectomy can still have a cervix. The pap smear test helps to detect cervical cancer.
A woman who has had a partial or full hysterectomy remains a woman even without her uterus and/or cervix.
A trans-man can have a womb and cervix.

That's why the narrative is "you don't need to have a uterus to be a woman". Because you don't need a uterus to be a biological woman.

Is changing the phrase from "all women with a cervix" to "all women and people with a cervix" really lunacy?

Not too long ago I had pretty much that binary M/F viewpoint but the more I've read about and heard about gender dysphoria and identity the more I've come to the conclusion that it's all become a bit more complicated than I previously thought and there has developed a medically recognised separation of biological sex and gender identity in a statistically small number of people.

It's really not a massive leap to accept that this recognition of trans people and their rights necessitates a slight reworking of grammar regarding gender.

The gay conversion or curing biological sex argument that you've attached to this is veering wildly into straw man territory. It's completely irrelevant and I haven't for one moment argued that a being tolerant of persons gender identity, especially in regard to gender dysphoria, redefines a persons sexual biology, physical medical needs or has anything to do with "curing" being gay.

No, but that's not what is asked - they want to replace the word women entirely to 'people with a cervix'. So your example is not accurate - indeed, that would be classed as discrimination by campaigners due to separating women and 'people with a cervix', because 'people with a cervix' identify as women too.

So what would be non-discriminatory in the eyes of campaigners would be replacing the sentence with "All people with a cervix aged 25 to 64 should be invited by letter". Which, yes, would be lunacy, as it does two things - eradicates the process and importance of transitioning, and degrades the importance of the term 'women'.

Heard all those arguments before, they all dance around the issue that it's denying trans women exist and trying to co-opt the word woman as an advanced form of misogyny against women. The term 'woman' means adult human female, and 'female' means the genetic ability to produce gametes, whether they actually do or not due to a dysfunction it's the scientific possibility of it occurring in the first instance due to their genetic code which defines the word 'female'. This is important because all sorts of fundamental female rights are underpinned by biological understanding of the distinction between male and female. It's not a strawman.

I can post a picture of the letter if you like.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Your interrupting my life to a peaceful existence … lol

Just give me one example then.

I'm not trying to trick you up. I know we disagree on most things political but I honestly believe our right to have a say and to fight (not figuratively) for what we believe in is one of the things I most like about this country. In fact I think sometimes we take it for granted.

I'm just interested to find out why you disagree with that.

 

[JLW]

People offended by everything!

You can say what you want but be prepared to labelled a ........... if people don't agree.

 

[arminisgod]

I'm assuming that you consider the current Tory Government to be a right leaning populist government (forgive me if I'm wrong lol)

Can I just ask in what regards is free speech under threat. I've always thought that the UK, whichever Government is in control at the time, has always been a place where you have been able to exercise that right to free speech.

There comes a time when free speech crosses the line into hate, bigotry and prejudice, and this country has done a lot to make such things a criminal offence in recent years. Such laws impose on the right to pure free speech, but that's a good thing. Isn't it?

seems to be only one way though... darren Lewis tweeted the other day about 'black Britain', i mean what even is that? A journo would have the pitchforks on them for talking about 'white Britain'

The BBC had a programme on about racism the other day, the reporter and interviewees kicking off about how black people aren't given oppurtunities down to the fact people are racist...

then in the next sentence advocating quotas for black people to get them into the fashion industry. So on one hand they want people to be judged fairly on merit... then penalise white people.

 

[ClausThomsen]

No, but that's not what is asked - they want to replace the word women entirely to 'people with a cervix'. So your example is not accurate - indeed, that would be classed as discrimination by campaigners due to separating women and 'people with a cervix', because 'people with a cervix' identify as women too.

So what would be non-discriminatory in the eyes of campaigners would be replacing the sentence with "All people with a cervix aged 25 to 64 should be invited by letter". Which, yes, would be lunacy, as it does two things - eradicates the process and importance of transitioning, and degrades the importance of the term 'women'.

Heard all those arguments before, they all dance around the issue that it's denying trans women exist and trying to co-opt the word woman as an advanced form of misogyny against women. The term 'woman' means adult human female, and 'female' means the genetic ability to produce gametes, whether they actually do or not due to a dysfunction it's the scientific possibility of it occurring in the first instance due to their genetic code which defines the word 'female'. This is important because all sorts of fundamental female rights are underpinned by biological understanding of the distinction between male and female. It's not a strawman.

I can post a picture of the letter if you like.

How does it eradicate the process and importance of transitioning or the importance of the term women? It's a recommendation that if you have a cervix then you should get a test.

There are a huge number of issues around smear tests and a lot are based around shame, embarrassment and fear. These issues are as present among trans-men as they are around women.

A person who presents themselves in a masculine way and identifies as a man could probably feel very awkward sat in a waiting room full of women despite also having the same screening needs. There is always going to be that little voice in the head thinking "These women are wondering what a man's doing here".

As such an initially slightly more neutral and inclusive tone isn't an attempt to deny or lessen anything. It's about trying to lessen stigma around a hugely important health issue. In much the same way a lot of people have in the past raised issues with the tone and authoritative nature of NHS letters when dealing with issues that can have a lot of anxiety and stress around them.

No need to post a picture of the letter as I have no reason not to believe you. I am slightly confused why you keep referring to trans-women though?

 

[Tubey]

How does it eradicate the process and importance of transitioning or the importance of the term women? It's a recommendation that if you have a cervix then you should get a test.

There are a huge number of issues around smear tests and a lot are based around shame, embarrassment and fear. These issues are as present among trans-men as they are around women.

A person who presents themselves in a masculine way and identifies as a man could probably feel very awkward sat in a waiting room full of women despite also having the same screening needs. There is always going to be that little voice in the head thinking "These women are wondering what a man's doing here".

As such an initially slightly more neutral and inclusive tone isn't an attempt to deny or lessen anything. It's about trying to lessen stigma around a hugely important health issue. In much the same way a lot of people have in the past raised issues with the tone and authoritative nature of NHS letters when dealing with issues that can have a lot of anxiety and stress around them.

No need to post a picture of the letter as I have no reason not to believe you. I am slightly confused why you keep referring to trans-women though?

Because it eradicates the meaning of the word 'woman'. I think that's why you are confused I'm mentioning trans women, because the whole point is that the extremist trans lobby want trans women to be identified as women, full stop, no distinctions made.

It's quite simple - "women and trans men". Sorts it all out. But they don't want that as they want to deny 'trans' exists as far as I can tell.

The NHS letters are factual. They need to be factual. Women need to be invited for smear tests. Trans men are still women. That's what people who complain can't get their heads around, because they want to delete the word trans as an identifier and they want trans men to be men and trans women to be women when they complete the transition. The transition itself at that point magically disappears.

I think that is extremely regressive. Instead, celebrate the fact people are trans. That's why situations like 'awkward in the waiting room' occur, because trans people are taught that unless they're identified as a 'real' version of the sex they want to be, then they're lesser than. They're not - they aren't the same, they should celebrate not being the same.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

 

[Blue 1]

Funny that the first paragraph in that Daily Mash article I posted on the first page of this thread mentions about people banging on about transgenderism, and here we are.

 

[ClausThomsen]

Because it eradicates the meaning of the word 'woman'. I think that's why you are confused I'm mentioning trans women, because the whole point is that the extremist trans lobby want trans women to be identified as women, full stop, no distinctions made.

It's quite simple - "women and trans men". Sorts it all out. But they don't want that as they want to deny 'trans' exists as far as I can tell.

The NHS letters are factual. They need to be factual. Women need to be invited for smear tests. Trans men are still women. That's what people who complain can't get their heads around, because they want to delete the word trans as an identifier and they want trans men to be men and trans women to be women when they complete the transition. The transition itself at that point magically disappears.

I think that is extremely regressive. Instead, celebrate the fact people are trans. That's why situations like 'awkward in the waiting room' occur, because trans people are taught that unless they're identified as a 'real' version of the sex they want to be, then they're lesser than. They're not - they aren't the same, they should celebrate not being the same.

Who are these "they" people or organisations beyond extreme groups?

I've no doubt that there are some extreme and dangerous viewpoints on either end of the spectrum but I've not heard of many creditable and legitimate organisations that push for the label Trans to be dropped entirely. The whole LGBTQ+ initialling saga generally tends to refute that point.

My original thought that someone discussing a slight rewording of an appointment letter is not an extreme viewpoint and it's not a thin end of the wedge attempt to eradicate biological womanhood or cause harm to others.

Which kind of takes us back to the point of the thread. It seems that every idea or thought is seized upon by some as part of a Machiavellian plot to steer society into the hands of fascistic or ultra-woke extremism. Much like you get arrested for being English these days or every single police officer is a raging racist desperate to murder young black men.