Current Affairs Free Speech

[Tubey]

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.

Countless examples. Here's a quick one.

We Need To Redefine The Word ‘woman’ In Order To Reflect Reality |

Gender politics has been a hot topic for quite some time now. With the rise of controversial figures such as Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, people from the

theconcordian.com

The word ‘woman’ was initially created to encompass only women who were born biologically female. Now that many trans women have disclosed their identity, it is important to redefine ‘woman’ to include trans women, and essentially, to better reflect reality. Since trans women identify and have always felt themselves to be women, I believe it is our duty to include them in that definition.

I believe such people as the above are insane.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

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.

I have not my problem cancel cancel culture is your thing.

 

[Hickson9]

Isn't it funny how debates around free speech always end up with men, debating women and trans women.

 

[Jimishorts]

Free speech is dead.

I just wanted to chat about my new cinnamon infusion candle only to find @Stav1985 excellent and informative thread about scented candles has been locked.

What is the world coming to?

 

[Tommy.]

Free speech technically doesn't exist in the UK but is free speech even a good thing?

Most of the people complaining about free speech are people who want to speak hatred.

Nail, meet head.

 

[Barnfred 55]

I have not my problem cancel cancel culture is your thing.

No idea what this even means.

@COYBL25 you have experience with this sort of thing. Can you help?

 

[Tubey]

The outrage over this is perfect example of not applying standards universally.

If you agree with Charlie Hebdo being able to print a picture of Mohammed without reprisal for the purpose of parody and critique, then you should agree with this.

It's parody. It's fine. It's the essence of free speech. It's not even poking fun at George Floyd OR Meghan Markle; it's actually a go at the Queen.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

Countless examples. Here's a quick one.

We Need To Redefine The Word ‘woman’ In Order To Reflect Reality |

Gender politics has been a hot topic for quite some time now. With the rise of controversial figures such as Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, people from the

theconcordian.com

I believe such people as the above are insane.

So when you say 'countless' you mean one then?

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

The outrage over this is perfect example of not applying standards universally.

If you agree with Charlie Hebdo being able to print a picture of Mohammed without reprisal for the purpose of parody and critique, then you should agree with this.

It's parody. It's fine. It's the essence of free speech. It's not even poking fun at George Floyd OR Meghan Markle; it's actually a go at the Queen.

What outrage are you talking about? Can't see any myself, certainly not on here. You seem to be the only person regularly outraged on this site. You and @ForeverBlue92 I suppose.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

The outrage over this is perfect example of not applying standards universally.

If you agree with Charlie Hebdo being able to print a picture of Mohammed without reprisal for the purpose of parody and critique, then you should agree with this.

It's parody. It's fine. It's the essence of free speech. It's not even poking fun at George Floyd OR Meghan Markle; it's actually a go at the Queen.

The French have a very different take on free speech and goes way back to the formation of being republic. Clever caricature for a front page. Besides we have left the EU now and what they do is between them and the EU. For a country that lobbed the heads off their royal family they are being very conservative, they should have squeezed a swastika on the Queen or similar.

 

[Tubey]

What outrage are you talking about? Can't see any myself, certainly not on here. You seem to be the only person regularly outraged on this site. You and @ForeverBlue92 I suppose.

I didn't say on here? It was/is big on Twitter.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

No idea what this even means.

@COYBL25 you have experience with this sort of thing. Can you help?

When in doubt revert to the comfort blanket of the echo chamber...

 

[verreauxi]

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.

The highlighted stuff above is incorrect. You need to better understand biology if you are to bring it up regarding this issue.

 

[Tubey]

The highlighted stuff above is incorrect. You need to better understand biology if you are to bring it up regarding this issue.

OK then, explain why. If you're nitpicking in that I didn't specify what gametes {ova} or the clumsy use of 'genetic code' when I meant biologically defined, then fair enough, but otherwise I don't see what is incorrect there.

 

[verreauxi]

OK then, explain why. If you're nitpicking in that I didn't specify what gametes {ova} or the clumsy use of 'genetic code' when I meant biologically defined, then fair enough, but otherwise I don't see what is incorrect there.

I'm not nitpicking. You brought up biology as a means to defend a position about what defines "woman." When you look at the biology underlying sex determination it is not as clear cut and binary as you (or many others think). There are five ways that one can talk about biological sex and not all of them always line-up to produce a strict binary system of "only male" and "only female": 1) chromosomal sex (XX or XY zygote), 2) gonadal sex (internal differentiation of ovaries/testes, 3) hormonal sex (relative levels of testosterone/estrogen), 4) anatomical sex (regression/development of Wolffian/Mullerian ducts), 5) behavioral/brain sex (relative amounts hormones acting on brain development). For example, an individual could be XY and have high circulating testosterone, but look entirely female (external vulva, developed breasts) and identify as a woman. And no biology or twitter outrage is necessary to accord this person the right to identify as a woman.

So importantly to me, the biology doesn't matter in this issue about trans rights and womanhood. It's simply a matter of respect and recognition. Who cares if the definition of "woman" is redefined? You find people who want to do this "insane." I find your position to be histrionic. Do you get equally aggrieved when you hear the word "mother"? Drawing on a strict biological definition of "mother," it should only apply to women who have given birth to a child. But of course the reality (independent of biology) is that many women are "mothers" such as those who have legally adopted a child or even those who have spent time raising a child that wasn't their own. Words and rights/laws are always redefined to accommodate the reality of human diversity. What puzzles me is why people on social media get so twitterpated about this.